Subscribe via RSS Feed

“We’re here to help people, and if we’re not helping people, we should go the fuck home.”

[ 368 ] April 4, 2017 |

185718998-sen-kirsten-gillibrand-addresses-a-conference.jpg.CROP.promo-mediumlarge

Kirsten Gillibrand is pretty clearly running for president in 2020 and I like just about everything about her, including the quote above. If Warren runs, she would have my vote in a heartbeat. But outside of that, I am more interested in Gillibrand than anyone else right now, including another run from Bernie. She has really good political instincts and is just a flat out great politician. Of course, going to the big stage is another huge test, but her chances seem good, she’s going to be a great counter to the inevitable Cuomo run, and she got why Trump needs to be opposed at all costs earlier than nearly everyone else.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Comments (368)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. DamnYankees says:

    Why Warren over Gillibrand?

    And yes, I’m totally on the Gillibrand train. I had hoped a few years ago that either she or Klobuchar would succeed Obama. Hopefully the dream isn’t dead.

    • LeeEsq says:

      Warren arguably has more of a national brand than Gillibrand.

      • DamnYankees says:

        Maybe, but that seems like a reason to bet she would win, not nexessarily why he’d vote for her.

        • Redwood Rhiadra says:

          Warren is an ACTUAL progressive.

          Gillibrand is a progressive when it’s politically convenient. (And was a Blue Dog conservative Democrat when *that* was politically convenient.)

          So FSM only knowns what the hell Gillibrand would be as POTUS.

          • Q.E.Dumbass says:

            Is this irony, or no?

            • Q.E.Dumbass says:

              Like, if this is meant as a joke, then it’s a very good joke! But AFAICT jokes (or even that much humor) doesn’t really seem to be your style.

          • Hogan says:

            You mean she represented the people who voted for her? We can’t be having with that kind of thing.

            • Q.E.Dumbass says:

              Given that Rhiadra is absolutely not a purity wanker — and is in fact generally a bit of a wet blanket in the other direction — this is probably intended as a contemptuous yet accurate summation of the pink anarchist bunny view (although applying it to Erik is completely unfair). The joke here is that Gillibrand’s blue dog period predates Warren’s conversion to left-liberalism by seven-or-so years, and that Warren’s reluctance to run is necessary for this to not bring up cognitive dissonance in such-and-such a pink anarchist bunny’s mind.

      • Gregor Sansa says:

        For 2020? That can change, and Warren is kinda old.

      • Nobdy says:

        I think Warren inarguably has more of a national brand than Gillibrand. Gillibrand has 4 years to raise her profile but I doubt non-political junkies outside New York have even heard of her.

        But Gillibrand is significantly younger and seems to have more of an appetite for campaigning than Warren.

      • vic rattlehead says:

        Aren’t you a fellow New Yorker? I’ve been watching Gillibrand for years – her political chops are leagues beyond Warren’s. And I like Warren! But GIllibrand is better for a presidential run.

        • AlexRobinson says:

          Please dear God, not Cuomo

          • Q.E.Dumbass says:

            True…but a Cuomo/Booker/Harris primary would be the definitive purity-bro* test, as would a Clinton/Cuomo gubernatorial primary.

            *”wanker” is more accurate but “bro” expresses the attitude better
            **and if anyone says it’s sexist/misgendering I WILL CUT A MOTHERFUCKER

          • NoMoreAltCenter says:

            I kind of want it to be Cuomo just to watch people like Lemieux and Loomis carry water for him.

            • Erik Loomis says:

              To refer back to a thread from the other day, this is the kind of comment that will get you banned.

            • vic rattlehead says:

              If 2020 is Cuomo vs Trump (and I will gargle a bucket of Ted Cruz’s diarrhea if Cuomo manages to actually beat a heavy hitter like Gillibrand or Booker) I will absolutely crawl through broken glass to vote for that slimy disgrace to his father’s name. You better believe it. And I will keep my strong negative feelings to myself to not taint him like so many did with Hillary. But inside I will seethe and I will grumble nonstop to my wife.

              • ForkyMcSpoon says:

                vic and Andy sittin’ in a tree,
                K-I-S-S-I-N-G
                [etc.]

              • No Longer Middle Aged Man says:

                Exactly. Cuomo is about as bad as a Democrat can get. Not merely careerist but utterly calculating in his political actions. But he won’t appoint a neo-Confederate AG, a climate change denier Environmental Secretary, an opponent of public schools as Education Secretary etc etc etc. He’ll be bad, which is better than malevolent.

                • UserGoogol says:

                  Democrats can be worse. I mean, he’s better than Joe Manchin. Cuomo is significantly worse than a Democrat from New York has to be and he’s done a lot of things to piss liberals off, but there’s a lot of garbage in the margins of the party.

                  Still, Manchin would have no chance in a primary. Cuomo is probably around the worst a politician with plausible presidential aspirations can be.

                • Q.E.Dumbass says:

                  Manchin is “worse” on a great many issues, but those are defensible in the context he’s working in. (Lest we forget, voting against Manchin could’ve easily gotten him outni-(clang!)ed). Cuomo is more in the Lieberman mold, in that his exceptional awfulness for a Democrat is largely independent of external pressures.

              • brewmn says:

                That’s the way it should be handled, vic.

            • mojrim says:

              Have you bothered to read, idk anything Loomis has written?

              • Redwood Rhiadra says:

                In NMAC’s eyes, Clinton is just as bad as Cuomo – neither is sufficiently Marxist (and I’m not red-baiting here – NMAC admitted to being a committed Marxist a couple months ago). So naturally he believes that Loomis would be just as happy to vote for Cuomo.

  2. Davis X. Machina says:

    Here’s hoping that Cuomo turns into the Democratic version of Phil Gramm in 1994.

    • Warren Terra says:

      That’s certainly the precedent I see – no-one seems to like him or believe he has the charisma or the narrative, and his only supporters are deep-pocketed donors beholden to him.

      Another example might be Scott Walker in 2016, except that a lot of people proclaimed his popularity with the base.

      • DamnYankees says:

        Yeah, I feel like he’s more like Rick Scott, who no one seems to like.

      • EliHawk says:

        Eh. I don’t see it, but I’m hesitant to write him off. He won his ‘beloved grassroots Liberal challenge’ and beat her by like 60 points in Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx. That’s where the actual Democratic base is. And the nomination still runs through voters like that. After 2016, I’m sympathetic to being cautious about underestimating voters who see things in politicians I don’t.

        • Davis X. Machina says:

          They loved Gramm in Texas, too.

          In Iowa and NH, not so much

          • EliHawk says:

            Iowa and New Hampshire are dominated by white liberal activists that don’t represent the modern party all that well. Hell, of recent nominees, the only one who did well in New Hampshire was the guy who represented the state next door. (Gore barely won; it was the only state he came in under 50%). I’m not saying he’s going to win or anything, I’m just saying that the average Presidential Primary voting Democrat isn’t the white guy on Daily Kos fulminating about the NY State Senate or the Teachout backers in the Hudson Valley.

            • efgoldman says:

              the average Presidential Primary voting Democrat isn’t the white guy on Daily Kos fulminating about the NY State Senate or the Teachout backers in the Hudson Valley.

              True, but Gillebrand will have a much easier time connecting to the wider base than Saint Wilmer did or will, she has abase equal to Cuomo’s in a large, diverse state, and at least so far, she hasn’t pissed off any of the necessary constituencies.

              • Abbey Bartlet says:

                I’ve been thinking about recent successful Democratic pols and I wonder if we’re going to increasingly find that being a senator or governor from a diverse state is a big asset in running for national office. Our candidates have to connect to a diverse group of people, and being from a very homogenous (white) state may make that difficult. The really fatal thing to Bernard (93% white) was his inability to connect with minorities, which did not happen to Clinton (56% white) or Obama (62% white).

                I wasn’t paying enough attention in ’04 to know–did lack of minority support hurt Dean (93% white)? Or Edwards (

                • Abbey Bartlet says:

                  Goddammit, edit button. Or Edwards (64% white, though with far more disenfranchisement of the rest)?

                • mongolia says:

                  look at the last 3 dem nominees:

                  Kerry – MA-Sen
                  Obama – IL-Sen
                  Clinton – NY-Sen

                  these are blue states with huge urban populations, and are relatively to extremely diverse. this is likely the reason they were able to both get solid donor funding and solid grassroots support, as they had to deal with a large, diverse constituency that didn’t push them towards being blue dogs, but instead forced them to forge the sorts of intra-coalition compromises between the various dem interest groups that is needed to get the coalition to all grudgingly work for the dem candidate.

                  which is why i have been saying (offline) since december to anyone who doesn’t physically shut me up that our next candidate will be a younger blue-state senator from a not-tiny with strong state party support – figure harris or gillibrand are top of the list, though merkley, klobuchar, murphy types wouldn’t surprise me either as being popular early contenders

                • Abbey Bartlet says:

                  these are blue states with huge urban populations, and are relatively to extremely diverse. this is likely the reason they were able to both get solid donor funding and solid grassroots support, as they had to deal with a large, diverse constituency that didn’t push them towards being blue dogs, but instead forced them to forge the sorts of intra-coalition compromises between the various dem interest groups that is needed to get the coalition to all grudgingly work for the dem candidate.

                  They also aren’t *insanely* liberal. There are some hella conservative parts of those states, and senator/governor requires winning and working with those, too.

                • mongolia says:

                  They also aren’t *insanely* liberal.

                  yup – can’t be a purity pony when you lead a large, diverse coalition with urban, suburban, rural, white, black, latino, non-native speakers, etc. which is what our vermont politicians have had trouble with in their respective primary challenges 12 years apart, and why i think the states that the senators come from have to both be moderate-to-large population wise and be reasonably-to-very diverse – which rules out senators from VT, NH, NM, HI, DE, RI, and makes life tough for those from mid-size states like CT and OR

              • Origami Isopod says:

                We don’t have any “insanely liberal” states. Cities, maybe, though the ones that come to mind tend to fall short on class awareness. Counties, same. States, not at all.

        • twbb says:

          A lot of that might just be residual love of his father.

      • zoomar says:

        Molly Ivins on Gramm: “Even his friends don’t like him.” Could say the same for Cuomo.

    • NoMoreAltCenter says:

      If we are being realistic, Cuomo will be the nominee in 2020. It is time to start getting the defense ready.

    • daves09 says:

      Cuomo and Brownback-separated at birth. Two nasty looking dudes.

  3. pdxtyler says:

    My preference would be Sherrod Brown. But if he doesn’t run, Gillibrand would be great.

    • Judas Peckerwood says:

      Have worked for Brown, and he’s the real deal.

    • Linnaeus says:

      I like Brown a lot, but I think I’d rather have him stay in the Senate.

    • NonyNony says:

      Brown has to survive the 2018 Senate election first. His seat is probably a bit safer with Trump in power than if Clinton had won, but it’s still going to be a fight. (My guess is that Kasich will mount a challenge. And he’ll likely be a tough challenger, especially if he still gets the benefit of being against Trump at the midterm from median voters. Voters in Ohio really like fake independents.)

      • Steve LaBonne says:

        I hope Kasich still has delusions of running for President. I’m confident that Sherrod can handily dispatch that weasel Mandel a second time, but Kasich scares me. He’s quite popular, FSM knows why.

        • Burning_River says:

          The good news is that there isn’t much rumbling on the Kasich front at this stage, though he’s got the better part of a year to change his mind.

          Agreed though, that beating Mandel like a tin drum should be in the offing, and only appropriate for that little peckerwood.

          • efgoldman says:

            The good news is that there isn’t much rumbling on the Kasich front at this stage, though he’s got the better part of a year to change his mind.

            It depends on whether Orangemandyas is still in office. Racist mouth breather, knuckle dragging flying monkeys are very thick on the ground in the Ohio primary voters. Kasich is a known quantity, and unaccountably popular, but against the emotional tug, who knows?

        • NonyNony says:

          I think his presidential ambitions are exactly why he will run for Senate. Former governor, sitting Senator would be a nice place to make a presidential run from. He’s term limited in 2018 too.

          I also think the state GOP will want him to run to have coattails for whoever they put up for governor. Good only knows who that will be at this point. I just wish the Dems had some talent to run for governor in 2018. There isn’t a deep bench in this state.

          • Steve LaBonne says:

            There barely is a Democratic Party in this state.

          • Warren Terra says:

            Recent ex-governor is pretty good positioning for 2020, without either the time commitments of the Senate or having to cast unpopular votes there. For 2024, six years out of office is probably too long, though getting into the Senate in 2018 and running for President in 2024 would mean giving up the Senate seat and running on a full term’s unpopular votes, some of whose effects will have become apparent.

            Of course, the question is 2020 or 2024, for a GOPer wanting to be President. I’m not sure what I’d predict.

            • NonyNony says:

              I’d assume he’d have himself ready for anything in 2020 – Trump is unpredictable in so many ways. He could decide not to run, he could have a heart attack, he could get a wave of Democrats elected to the House and Senate in 2018 and end up impeached, even worse (from a GOP perspective) he could get a wave of Democrats elected to the House and Senate in 2018 and end up signing whatever they put in front of him.

              Kasich is 64 right now – so he’ll be 72 in 2024. That would be pretty old to get elected president. Reagan was 70, but of course Kasich is no Ronnie Raygun (though Kasich has an ego so I wouldn’t be surprised if he tries one more time). A Senate seat would be a nice consolation prize in his mind, I think, as would knocking Brown out of the seat.

    • randy khan says:

      I agree that he’s the real deal, but I don’t think he’s running. (I have a tiny connection to his family, and they don’t give off any vibe of thinking he’d take that leap.)

  4. Nobdy says:

    I like Gillibrand but I’m really not looking forward to another Donald Trump run against a woman. I’m not talking about from a strategic perspective, I just don’t want to see the Donald vomit up misogyny for another six months and watch it not matter. It was nauseating, exhausting, and demoralizing last time.

    I guess it doesn’t really matter, but ugh. Just ugh.

    • Gregor Sansa says:

      Don’t worry. Trump will not be the Republican nominee in 2020. I doubt he’ll be president for even 3 years. He doesn’t have the stamina.

      • Gregor Sansa says:

        Of course, Pence’s unctuous misogyny would also be stomach-churning… or that of basically any other possible 2020 candidate.

        • Nobdy says:

          “I’m sorry, but I can’t debate senator Gillibrand unless Mother moderates. Debating is sensual and intimate and often leads to sex, and I only have sex with Mother!”

        • gmack says:

          No doubt Pence’s unctuousness would be stomach-churning; personally, I’d still find it less infuriating than Trump. Trump disgusts me on a more personal (even visceral) level than any politician in my lifetime.

          • ForkyMcSpoon says:

            Somehow, Trump disgusts me far less than the other Republicans, and the public/media reaction to him. So many of them know what he is and don’t care, and that disgusts me even more.

            Trump is still awful though, of course.

            • gmack says:

              That’s interesting. For me, his media/public reaction is just part of the overall shit sandwich. For instance, I always dislike watching presidential debates, but this season I found them excruciating. Watching him for that length of time caused me something close to physical pain, and the notion that so many people watched this and concluded, “yeah, I support this guy for president”–well, I often find the whole thing intolerable.

            • vic rattlehead says:

              Me too kind of. Kind of. Trump’s blatant and egregious bigotry is the most honest thing about him (and I don’t mean that in the mouthbreathing Trump supporter sense). He’s a career grifter and dishonest prick but his disgusting and unapologetic misogyny is like the only…guileless? thing about him. He’ll smile while he rips you off and deny basic facts and gaslight the shit out of you but he’ll make no effort to hide what a fucking pig he is.

              Pence’s brand of misogyny is slathered in sanctimony which drives me BONKERS.

        • ForkyMcSpoon says:

          Unless he gets lucky enough to end up popular after taking over, I wonder if Pence would even be likely to be the nominee.

          Certainly, he’ll probably be in a stronger position than anyone else.

          It would amuse me to watch him go down in the primaries though.

          • vic rattlehead says:

            If Trump is unpopular enough we may have something like 1980. Who would be the Kennedy to Trump’s Carter though?

            • jim, some guy in iowa says:

              that is something I don’t see happening. If trump wants the nomination and isn’t actually in jail they won’t deny him

              • vic rattlehead says:

                If his approval rating gets much worse I’m not so sure.

                • jim, some guy in iowa says:

                  you know, Cruz might be enough of a snake to give a primary challenge a whirl. And if trump is really underwater maybe Kasich

                  but I really just don’t see any of them having the guts to risk alienating trump’s base. Maybe my memory of the R primary is too strong yet

                • ForkyMcSpoon says:

                  Cruz would need to stop being Trump’s craven toady in that case. And early enough to erase the stench of his pathetic capitulation during the election.

                  I almost wonder if someone (a Democrat, or even Trump himself) could make hay running ads mocking Cruz for saying he wasn’t in the business of endorsing men who insult his wife and his father… and then caving and doing it anyway.

                • Just_Dropping_By says:

                  Based on Cruz’s conduct at the RNC, I was originally thinking Cruz was setting himself up to primary Trump in 2020, but his subsequent conduct makes that seem much less likely. I would rate Sasse and Kasich as the more likely primary challengers at this point based on their behavior.

          • John Revolta says:

            If I recall correctly his Governorin’ approval number in IN last year was below 20%

      • NoMoreAltCenter says:

        Trump absolutely will be the Republican nominee in 2020 and if I had to objectively place a bet, he probably will win.

        • Do you do sports predictions too? I could use some extra cash.

        • GeoX says:

          Yeah, you’re nothing if not “objective.”

        • ajay says:

          Trump absolutely will be the Republican nominee in 2020 and if I had to objectively place a bet, he probably will win.

          Agreed. If there’s one thing the last year should have taught us it’s that saying “this could never happen because TRUMP” is a silly argument, whereas “this has generally happened in the past, so it’ll probably happen again” is a good one. The economy’s good but not great and the president’s been in office for two terms? Probably the challenger’s going to win. “But TRUMP!” Even so. And indeed so it was.

          So, Trump might die in office. He’s in his 70s. But the chances aren’t high.
          And how many presidents have failed to complete a term in office for reasons other than death? One – Nixon. So if Trump’s still alive, he’ll be president in 2020.
          How many times in the past has a sitting president decided not to run for re-election when he could have done? Not many, and very few recently. Washington, obviously. A lot in the 19th century: Tyler, Polk, Pierce, Buchanan, Johnson, Hayes, Arthur. Only Truman and Johnson since then.
          How many times has a sitting president run for re-election? 27. I counted.
          And how many times has he been re-elected? 18.

          So, yes, Trump is almost certainly going to run for re-election in 2020 and he’s probably going to win. Not definitely; probably.

          • Rob in CT says:

            I absolutely think he’ll be the nominee. All this he’ll quit stuff is silly, IMO.

            As to whether he’ll win, it’ll depend on events. I mean, shit, surely if the guy is still rocking 50%+ disapprove/40% or less approve numbers he’s going down.

      • efgoldman says:

        Trump will not be the Republican nominee in 2020. I doubt he’ll be president for even 3 years. He doesn’t have the stamina.

        Even if his favorable/unfavorable doesn’t get any worse, he’s going to have huge negatives to overcome. Anybody that’s been part of the shitshow, especially the VP, is going to be tainted, badly, by association. Dense has lots of vulnerabilities, and the charisma of milkweed. It’s not like he was a reality show star, unless you count the maladministration as a reality show.

      • Matt McIrvin says:

        People said he’d be gone by Super Tuesday; they said he wouldn’t make it to the convention; they said he was done for every time he melted down in public; they said he’d lose interest and quit before November. I think Trump has more stamina than anyone gives him credit for.

    • bender says:

      Profanity, to be effective, needs to be employed selectively and not habitually. A woman who can use profanity as appropriately as Gillibrand did in the headline will have no trouble handling whichever misogynists oppose her.

      Most politicians are so afraid of telling the truth or being quoted out of context that they lose the ability to speak plainly when it’s called for. Truman famously could. Bill Clinton regularly deflated Republican talking points with one short, funny sentence that showed them up as liars or fools and put the audience on his side.

      I like Warren but her range of issues is limited and so is the way she talks about them. She seems to want to stay in the Senate if she can’t have a Cabinet position, and I think she is wise.

      • Nobdy says:

        I am not saying that Gillibrand can’t handle it or that I don’t want her to run. She can. I do. I just don’t want to watch Donald do his horrible act. It makes me queasy.

        And I think Hillary handled Donald well, especially during the debates, and it didn’t matter. The misogyny still worked even when a smart woman had clever quips and substantive responses.

        • jim, some guy in iowa says:

          I dunno, if things keep going the way they have so far for the donnie, “going through the motions” could be a bridge too far for him

        • rm says:

          She flattened him in debates, although his misogynist followers thought he won by being a pig, which they liked. But when you say it didn’t matter, remember that the result of the election was a fluke. It was flipping a coin and getting it to stand on its edge. It was the outcome only 5% likely to happen, happening. We got very, very unlucky.

          • Matt McIrvin says:

            2000 was a fluke. I’m not sure 2016 was a fluke; the split between the popular and the electoral vote was too stark, and points to some larger trend operating.

            Popular-electoral splits in which the Democratic majority vote is more and more overwhelmingly concentrated in California, and the Republican wins on the strength of Midwestern electoral votes with a starkly racist pitch, may be our foreseeable future until the manifest illegitimacy of it causes the US to collapse.

            • scott_theotherone says:

              Maybe. But I feel like having someone like Gillibrand say to those oh so powerful (the only voters that matter!) white working class voters, “four years ago, Donald Trump promised he’d make everything better for you. So…has he?” would be very powerful.

        • randy khan says:

          There were obviously, ah, other factors in the result, but Clinton’s performances in the debates all benefitted her in the polls, so I’d say it did matter. (As I’ve noted in other threads, basically Clinton’s numbers improved every time she got to speak to a national audience without media filters – the convention and the three debates.)

        • brewmn says:

          Trump is going to have to run on a record of throwing tens of millions off of their health insurance in favor of tax cuts for wealthy people, poisoning our air and water so Dow Chemical can make a few more bucks, and repeated misadventures abroad. That’s a best-case scenario. I wouldn’t be surprised if he throws the economy into recession and has provoked a rash of domestic terror attacks he looks powerless to prevent.

          Plus, he won’t be ratings catnip for the media any more. Four years of his monosyllabic bullshit will have worn mighty thin for all but his most diehard supporters. A smart, tough-talking woman not weighed down by thirty years of media baggage will obliterate him.

          • Matt McIrvin says:

            Domestic terror attacks will help him. I’ve been bracing for Trump’s Reichstag fire/9-11 ever since Election Day. The reaction will be a push to round up every Muslim in America into detention camps, and Trump can argue that evil judges are tying his hands and keeping America from Getting Tough.

      • vic rattlehead says:

        When Bill Clinton still had his fastball he was really something.

      • Princetonlawyer says:

        I’m a 54-year old woman, with a 22-year old daughter who just won a national debating championship (I won’t say for which nation, b/c that would out her.) I tend to swear like a (Princetonian) sailor, my mother (Bryn Mawr ’55) swore like the Asperger’s hyperlexic high-anxiety person she was (gear shifts were a particular target of a good, solid, workmanlike, “Shit” or even “Fuck” to find and engage the gear she was looking for), but OMFG, as the kids say, my daughter swears a blue, blue streak. But, Jesus, reading that article, my kid sounds just like Kirsten Gillibrand! If I hadn’t been exposed to my daughter and her friends, I’d think Gillibrand was nuts. As is, it’s SO refreshing, it’s another sign that she is in tune with her public, and, from personal experience, I bet she shuts a bunch of older men the fuck up with that mouth. I know I do, despite not enjoying it when I hear it from my own kid. All I can say is, way to go you goddamn fucking Heaven-sent miracle, Gillibrand 2020!!!!!

    • ASV says:

      If he’s running, there will be misogyny vomited up. There’s a good chance he spends all of fall 2019 actively campaigning and talking nonstop about Hillary.

    • kped says:

      On the one hand, i kind of get what you are saying…

      ..on the other, it almost sounds like “lets not run a woman when they run a sexist pig”…which means we may not run a woman for a looooong damn time.

      • Nobdy says:

        I explicitly didn’t say that and in fact said that I hope she runs.

        I don’t understand how “I am not looking forward to Donald Trump being specifically horrible in the way he is most horrible” can be interpreted as “I don’t want Gillibrand to run for president” unless you’re entering a “least charitable possible interpretation” contest.

    • vic rattlehead says:

      But imagine him losing the popular vote to a WOMAN twice! Oh boy that’ll eat him up inside! And this time boot his ass out of office.

    • kvs says:

      I think I understand what you mean. But it reads pretty patronizing as written.

    • mojrim says:

      This would differ from any GOP candidate in what way?

    • Chetsky says:

      [After reading this thread] I sympathize with your reaction, but would note that the answer isn’t for us to cringe; rather, it is for -every- Dem organ to be in sync in ripping him a new one. Mark Cuban needs to personally fund legal representation and personal protection for women who come forward. Other well-heeled Dems need to indemnify any whistleblowers with the dirt on this scumbag. And the message needs to be clear: he’s a rapist. Not a misogynist. A rapist. Let him try to sue the entire Democratic establishment. Nuclear war on the fucker.

      Of course, the same needs to be done on the fraud front. But I think the Dems should strike first and strike hard on the politics of personal destruction — after all, these fnckers have it coming. If N. Leroy Three-times-Married comes along, he needs to be ground up too. Every. One. Of. Them.

      Make Yertle come begging with a peace treaty.

  5. eclare says:

    Gillibrand would certainly be a test of sincerity for all those “I’m not opposed to a woman president, but there’s just something about Hilary that I don’t like” folks. Will her cursing be a deal breaker? Or will she just seem vaguely unpleasant and untrustworthy?

    • Thom says:

      It will turn out to be just women who have been senators from NY. Or just women who have been senators. Or…

    • Gregor Sansa says:

      I think that this will actually be a point in her favor. Just as a nontrivial number of racists voted for Obama to prove they weren’t racist.

      I’d be happy with Gillibrand. Especially if, as actually seems plausible, she can avoid being typecast on the DLC/brogressive axis. I’d rather she gets some flak from both sides than that she ends up being a totem (however spuriously) for everything one side hates about the other.

    • Rusty SpikeFist says:

      LOL who the fuck are you identitarian neolibs to judge anyone else’s sincerity?

      i’d happily support Gillibrand for the nom, but I can tell already that after spending a year selling your “single-payer is RACIST!!!!1!!” spiel, you’ll never let go of it. Booker or Cuomo or Evan Bayh will run on the woke-centrist platform, with a tsunami of money from banks and financial firms behind them, then John Lewis will suddenly remember how Cuomo marched with him on the Edmund Pettus bridge but forgot to mention it until now, and you people will fall in line and the nomination will be over, with a little help in creative vote counting from Tom Perez.

      you people don’t realize how predictable and transparent you are.

    • kped says:

      I believe she was a blue dog way back when. And someone will find something from 10 years ago (14 years ago next election) to call her a neoliberal, and Greenwald and Taibbi will say Democrats haven’t learnt their lesson, and blah blah fuckity blah.

      • wjts says:

        She was. If she runs in 2020, I expect the True Leftist Clinton Critique to be amended to, “Any political position that Gillibrand has ever taken that I disagree with is her real position. Any political position that I can imagine Gillibrand taking that I disagree with is her secret real position. Any political position that Gillibrand has taken that I agree with is insincere pandering.”

      • vic rattlehead says:

        Oh god some internet dumbshits will call her a neoliberal! We’re doomed!

        There will always be glib turdwaffles like Taibbi and Greenwald, and there will always be hopelessly credulous mouthbreathers licking their taints. Not much we can do about that.

        • kped says:

          Oh, don’t get me wrong, fuck those guys, I don’t care who they prefer or who they dislike. Just know that they are hacks and will still be hacks in 3 years (maybe even worse then, the fights they engage in now might push them further into that rage hole).

          • kped says:

            Speaking of those shit heads, i love this from Booman

            http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2017/4/4/135425/2671

            Everyone has their pet theory about how the Democrats should be different, and what you’ll notice before long is that all the people who are asking folks to shut up about Russia are really asking them to talk about their pet theory instead.

            For them, admitting that money and media affect elections is easy when it’s the Koch Brothers exploiting Citizens United, but when it’s Russians manipulating their Facebook feed, that’s a threat to their worldview that all would be rosy if only Sanders had been nominated or Clinton had campaigned in Wisconsin or neoliberalism had been strangled in the crib.

            These rearview battles are the real distraction. The president is bleeding like a stuck pig, and people want to run to his rescue because it’s all a big distraction from the thing they really care about.

            He has those guys dead to fucking rights here (this is a follow up to another post he had about Taibbi’s latest RS article)

            • vic rattlehead says:

              Yeah I read Booman’s takedown of Taibbi today too. That was a good one.

            • zoomar says:

              Taibbi writing has lost some edge since the Intercept experience. For a guy with razor sharp perception, the Trump/Russia nexus is just passing him by. His work on the 2008 crash was brilliant as was his work on the Iraq war. I’m sorry that his voice just doesn’t have much to offer in the era of Trump. He was essential reading during the Bush years. I’ve enjoyed his work since the Buffalo Beast days with Ian Murphy and hope he gets his mojo back.

          • vic rattlehead says:

            I wanted to edit my comment to make it clear that I wasn’t stacking you but alas.

      • efgoldman says:

        Greenwald and Taibbi will say Democrats haven’t learnt their lesson

        Fuck
        Them
        My granddaughter will be seven in 2020, and I trust her judgement more.

    • mojrim says:

      Actually, it makes me like her. A lot.

    • Princetonlawyer says:

      See my comment, above, on how much I love her cursing. For people who haven’t read the article yet, it’s worth the time. I have never seen a politician, male or female, quite so free with the casual profanity in a major interview. My favorite:

      Gillibrand’s Cabinet votes lined up with her principles: “I look at each nominee,” she told me. “If they suck, I vote against them. If they’re worthy, I vote for them.”

      I can still remember my mother telling me (in around 1976) not to say “suck,” because “you don’t know what it means, but it’s not nice.” It’s true, I didn’t know. But we all know now, and Gillibrand doesn’t mince words: they suck.

    • Abbey Bartlet says:

      The bros will still get the vapors over KG because she endorsed Hillary instead of the One True Progressive. Also something something Wall Street.

    • nemdam says:

      The brogressive case against Gillibrand is endless. One of the biggest purity tests is they will point out that she was a defense attorney working with Philip Morris as a client. “She defended BIG TOBACCO! SHE IS NEOLIBERAL!!!!” Of course, they will ignore the part where she used this experience to reexamine her career and decided to go into public service to do something useful with her life. In other words, she did what we wish everyone who was climbing the corporate ladder would do. But she was neoliberal so she’s out. But they are NOT against women presidents because they will again support Jill Stein and a phantom Elizabeth Warren.

    • personwhoreads says:

      It’s possible purity progressives will boycott her as Hillary Part 2 once they learn more about her history. I think this blogger is often unfairly critical of good Dems for having the audacity to represent the voters of their moderate/conservative districts, but this is quite the anti-Gillibrand screed. http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2017/04/would-kirsten-gillibrand-be-even-more.html?m=1

  6. A politician who explains her changed positions as the product of learning, admitting having been wrong before? It’s so crazy, it might just work!

  7. Steve LaBonne says:

    Another run from Bernie is a prospect that excites me only slightly more than being inoculated with anthrax. And that’s after voting for him in the primary last year (a vote I’d like to have back).

    • wjts says:

      I voted for Sanders in the primary and don’t regret it, but I can’t say that I’m particularly enthused by the prospect of him running again.

      • delazeur says:

        Same. More because of his supporters than because of him, although even if it weren’t for his supporters I would think that his time has passed.

      • Gregor Sansa says:

        +2864974

      • witlesschum says:

        Yeah. I’m glad Bernie ran and I voted for him, but I think he’s done his part. As someone said above, this country needs some new blood.

      • Murc says:

        This.

        Sanders will be 79 in 2020 and would be nearing ninety in 2028. And Presidentin’, if you take it at all seriously, is a high-stress job that ages you considerably.

        Sanders was borderline in 2016. In 2020? I’d need an extremely compelling reason to vote for him again. Like, it would have to be a Sanders/Cuomo primary or something.

        • Q.E.Dumbass says:

          If that comes to pass, then I will literally eat a baby.

          And while I voted Clinton in the primary, my opinion of Sanders only changed from “did his part” to “you disappoint me” within the last month…but given how his douchier supporters have acted, I really think the unidentified male should’ve been the primary candidate to represent the further-left this cycle.

        • vic rattlehead says:

          I would vote Sanders over Cuomo in a heartbeat. Pretty much anyone else though? I’d take Bayh as someone mentioned upthread (LOL) over him. Cuomo vs Sanders really is the only scenario I can think of.

          • Q.E.Dumbass says:

            What about Webb?

            • vic rattlehead says:

              As a New Yorker I have some strong antipathy towards Cuomo. I don’t think Webb has stabbed his own party in the back (happy to be corrected). I think a 79 year old Sanders redux would be a terrible idea. I liked Sanders but in that scenario he’s the jumping out of a burning building to Cuomo’s burning to death. I would probably just swallow the Webb shit sandwich.

              • Abbey Bartlet says:

                I don’t think Webb has stabbed his own party in the back (happy to be corrected).

                I do think there’s a 50/50 chance he voted for Gary Johnson though.

                • zoomar says:

                  Personally engineering a Republican state senate over his own party just to be a dick. Needlessly picking fights, obstructing a progressive NYC mayor just to be a dick, would certainly qualify as stabbing your party in the back. Plus Webb is the best one can expect from a Democrat in his state. Not so with Cuomo.

                • Abbey Bartlet says:

                  Personally engineering a Republican state senate over his own party just to be a dick. Needlessly picking fights, obstructing a progressive NYC mayor just to be a dick, would certainly qualify as stabbing your party in the back. Plus Webb is the best one can expect from a Democrat in his state. Not so with Cuomo.

                  I mean…I wasn’t disagreeing with you about Cuomo’s shittiness…just noting that Webb may have voted for Johnson…

                • ForkyMcSpoon says:

                  Plus Webb is the best one can expect from a Democrat in his state.

                  Maybe at the time.

                  Virginia can do a lot better now.

            • randy khan says:

              Luckily, I don’t think we’ll have to worry about Webb.

            • Matt McIrvin says:

              I know a guy who wrote in Webb for his general-election vote, and, despite his hatred for Donald Trump, is still convinced that he did the right thing. Whatever.

        • EliHawk says:

          Hell, I’d vote for Cuomo in that. At least he could do the damn job. And as perhaps the most craven, incentive conscious national politician around, probably able to be pushed in some productive ways if you got him away from Albany.

      • NoMoreAltCenter says:

        It would probably be more appropriate for him to endorse a successor, although, yeah, I would vote for him. People are living longer and all that. Pick a good VP just…in…case and I would be fine.

    • Sly says:

      And that’s after voting for him in the primary last year (a vote I’d like to have back).

      Nearly a year later, I still believe that my decision to stay home and watch the last two episodes of the second season of Daredevil instead of voting in the New York Democratic Primary was the best possible decision of the ones available to me.

  8. Jackson87 says:

    Gillibrand, Brown, Whitehouse, Schiff, Merkley,…Michelle?

    • Merkley is my Senator and a damn good one. I want him to continue doing his good work in the Senate. He’s also a pretty dull speaker. Oregon isn’t known for its charismatic politicians.

    • StellaB says:

      I love Gillibrand and Brown, but I have a soft spot for the junior senator from Minnesota, myself. He would be the first Jewish president.

      Since my Gov. Brown is too old to run, how about Oregon’s Gov. Brown? That would blew up a few right wing brains.

      • Take my post from above and multiply it by four. Kate Brown is a legislator’s legislator and a liberal technocrat who has won many safe elections in a small, blue (and increasingly so) state. She could end up in the US Senate except that Wyden and Merkley are probably going to be there forever.

    • efgoldman says:

      Gillibrand, Brown, Whitehouse, Schiff, Merkley,…Michelle?

      Whitehouse is one of my senators, and I like him a lot. But personality wise, he gets closer to Dukakis on the spectrum than Bill Clinton or Obama.
      I’m also pretty sure we’d elect another Dem to the senate to replace him, but still…

      • efgoldman says:

        Also am really impressed by Schiff, but I can’t imagine a house member winning the nomination, never mind the election.
        OTOH, if DiFi ever retires or dies, he’d make a hell of a senator.

        • N__B says:

          I can’t imagine a house member winning the nomination, never mind the election.

          Ar you saying that the end of The West Wing was unrealistic? Quelle horreur!

        • wjts says:

          If I remember correctly, the only sitting Representative ever elected president was James Garfield.

          • Matt McIrvin says:

            Until 2008, there was a lot of talk about how the Senate was actually a poor stepping-stone to the Presidency: lots of former Senators have been President, but of the 20th-century ones, three were elected Vice-President first (and two of them initially became President through succession).

            Of course, Donald Trump throws all the patterns out the window.

            The more recent traditional path has been through a Governorship. That’s a problem for the Democratic Party because we just don’t have a lot of Governors these days.

        • ForkyMcSpoon says:

          The top two primary system they’ve got there now might cause some problems for DiFi.

          Well, I hope it does anyway.

          Another Democrat vs. Democrat general election seems quite plausible, and I doubt DiFi will be the left-most candidate in that race.

        • bender says:

          Supposing Feinstein doesn’t retire–

          If life in the meantime doesn’t distract us from state politics, it will be interesting to see whether the other Democrats running in the open primary are hopeless, one decently funded daredevil, or a free for all of every termed out ambitious politician in California who isn’t willing to wait any longer.

      • IM says:

        ideal name, though.

    • I’d vote for Sheldon Whitehouse just for the bad puns.

  9. stonetools says:

    Gillebrand-Schiff 2020! you heard it here first!

    Actually, this is absurd. Nobody saw Obama running in 2005, and nobody saw Trump running in 2013. We just don’t know yet.
    We might want to go straight white male on the top of the ticket, though. I don’t like the idea of playing it safe by pandering to “traditional” attitudes, but I like the idea of the Democrats losing in 2020 even less ( Full disclosure: I am an African American male).
    If we want to go the white guy route, Chris Murphy and Jeff Merkley look good

    • jim, some guy in iowa says:

      I don’t know that a white guy is needed if the eventual nominee is someone who *everybody* can get behind- or at least shut up about their reservations. No matter who gets the nomination, another general election where a loud minority backbites and prances about doing nose-holds all the way up to election night will not go well for us

    • bender says:

      101 years after women got the vote, “It’s too soon, the country isn’t ready.” Really?

      • Q.E.Dumbass says:

        Well, it’s not like Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle were surprised by the election results. (The same attitude, especially w/r/t minority backlash, is expressed in this hilarious XXL piece).

        But yeah, preemptively surrender to white backlash at this point is just paranoia. (Keep in mind I’m also an AA male).

      • Matt McIrvin says:

        I think there’s a possibility that 400 years from now, the US or whatever successor state exists in its place will be the only country on Earth never to have had a female head of government.

    • dmsilev says:

      Nobody saw Obama running in 2005

      After his Convention keynote speech in summer 2004 followed by the outcome of the 2004 election, people absolutely did see Obama running for the 2008 nomination.

      • random says:

        Thanks, I assumed he was going to be the next President.

      • Sly says:

        Fuckin’ David Brooks saw it coming. David Brooks.

      • StellaB says:

        My ex-Republican father was talking about him by 2006. As much as I liked HRC, I was leaning BHO by early 2007. Sadly, I thought those damn ovaries would be an electoral problem. I’m old and disappointed by life.

      • Gizmo says:

        My dad ran a non-profit, and met him back when he was doing his community organizing work. The take from several people was “This guy is going to pre president some day”

      • Matt McIrvin says:

        My mother-in-law saw that speech and immediately said “that man is the first black President”. I don’t think everyone saw him for 2008, though; some people were talking about him as a 2008 VP candidate and maybe becoming President in 2016 or 2020. He was young; he had a lot of time.

    • kped says:

      How is “straight white men” the lesson you learnt from this election? Clinton was a unique candidate, on top of being a woman. She had 30 years of insane conspiracy theories directed at her from the right and far left, plus Russian meddling, plus Comey…

      …and she still got 3 million more votes and only lost by a slim 80K margin in 3 states.

      A different female candidate will not have those same circumstances. A lesson can be “don’t run someone with so much baggage”, and that’s probably a great idea! But “only run straight white males” is the absolute wrong lesson to learn. Now, not saying a straight white male is a bad choice, but it should be on the merits of the candidate, not some fear of losing because “ew, another girl” (which again, is not the real reason Hillary lost).

      • Q.E.Dumbass says:

        Minority backlash paranoia.

      • rm says:

        A whitebread Ken doll is not preferable to a talented campaigner who is female and/or a POC. It just happens that currently Gillibrand, Booker, and Kamala Harris seem like the most charismatic likely candidates. I don’t know if some governor is out there. Someone else with talent might come along. But I’ll go with someone inspiring before I cynically choose a white male out of fear. That choice only really works for the bigot party anyway. Chris Rock may have been unsurprised by white supremacy winning again, but white supremacy is the Republican brand. We’ve got to have a different message anyway.

    • Princetonlawyer says:

      Gillibrand-Duckworth. I’ll see you a straight white male and raise you a foul-mouthed motherfuckin’ political genius, and a double-amputee war veteran.
      (In other words, I do agree with your post, and I think the way Tammy jams her Terminator-style prostheses into pumps, sticking out from below a skirt, might be what it takes to neutralize–hell, hopefully vaporize, well, at least EXPOSE the racists/misogynists. They’re already looking like fools on her being half-Asian:
      http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/mark-kirk-questions-tammy-duckworth-s-family-s-service-heritage-n674331

    • Chetsky says:

      There was a joke, back in the day, that the reason Obama got elected, was that white men had screwed up the country so bad, only a black man was willing to actually take the job of cleaning it up. Given we’ve got the Tangerine Usurper and his Recessive Dimwit Spawn doing the effing-up this time, maybe we should be expecting Harris, Booker, or Patrick?

    • Everyone saw Obama running in 2005; his speech at the DNC was a dead giveaway. At that point I would already have been shocked if anyone else had been our next nominee, and would’ve been somewhat surprised if he hadn’t been the next president. It was immediately obvious to me how much political talent he had. And the shitgibbon had already run once in 2012, so his run wasn’t surprising either; what was surprising is that people voted for him this time, for some reason that remains entirely incomprehensible to me.

    • Rob in CT says:

      Two things, other than the obvious yes people saw Obama coming by then thing, which multiple people have already pointed out:

      1) Chris Murphy’s a nice enough fellow and I’m happy w/him as my senator, but he’s from a dinky little NE state (that I quite like, but…) and I have no idea if he has the political skills necessary to credibly run for POTUS; and

      2) Murphy is all-in on gun control, because Newtown. My read of this issue politically is that we’ve lost it pretty decisively (for now) and need to change a lot of minds before it can be an asset rather than a liability in a Pres campaign.

      Frankly, his resume is pretty thin too, but whatever. Clearly THAT doesn’t matter (unless it’s yet another IOKAYAR thing).

  10. Murc says:

    But outside of that, I am more interested in Gillibrand than anyone else right now, including another run from Bernie. She has really good political instincts and is just a flat out great politician. Of course, going to the big stage is another huge test, but her chances seem good, she’s going to be a great counter to the inevitable Cuomo run, and she got why Trump needs to be opposed at all costs earlier than nearly everyone else.

    I endorse everything in this post.

    The only thing I’m unsure about is whether or not Gillibrand has or can generate star power, if she can make people feel that tingle up their legs that it seems a non-trivial part of the electorate across the entire political spectrum is really looking for. Brutal experience has shown that we kinda need that. I mean, I’m cautiously enthused for her, but I am an outlier and should not be counted.

    I’m honestly not sure Cuomo runs. He’s got a good thing going here in New York, where Governors are not term-limited, and he has to have some idea of how badly he’d get pulverized in a national primary. I don’t think he’s dumb enough to believe that a party that just lost with Hillary Clinton will turn its lonely eyes to him.

    I hope Sanders doesn’t run again, for reasons outlined above. The rest of the field would need to be very shitty for me to consider him. Like, no Warren, no Gillibrand, no Brown, nothing. (I don’t want Brown to run either because the Ohio senate seat is not secure, but otherwise I’d be enthused by the prospect.)

    • wjts says:

      I think the only way I’d vote for Sanders in 2020 is in a primary race against Cuomo and/or Jim Webb.

      • Abbey Bartlet says:

        I think the only way I’d vote for Sanders in 2020 is in a primary race against Cuomo and/or Jim Webb.

        Sanders would be 102 years old by 2028. That would give me hella pause even if I didn’t already hate him.

    • Davis X. Machina says:

      …he has to have some idea of how badly he’d get pulverized in a national primary.

      Not if nobody in his coterie tells him, and I doubt anybody does. I suspect he’s Andrew Goddamn Cuomo, and no one talks to me like that.

    • eclare says:

      The only thing I’m unsure about is whether or not Gillibrand has or can generate star power, if she can make people feel that tingle up their legs that it seems a non-trivial part of the electorate across the entire political spectrum is really looking for.

      I’ve never heard her speak, and even if I had I’m a terrible judge of such things, but the article Loomis linked to suggests that she can bring a room to its feet when she turns it on.

    • kvs says:

      You mean if she can channel the Rev. Gillibrand from the opening scene?

    • vic rattlehead says:

      I can see Cuomo doing one more term but for Christs sake I’ve been sick of him from day one. Since he came back to New York from the Clinton Administration. And I voted for the fucker. If he wants anything beyond that I don’t see it. He got embarrassed in the 2014 primary by a political nonentity.

    • Abbey Bartlet says:

      The only thing I’m unsure about is whether or not Gillibrand has or can generate star power, if she can make people feel that tingle up their legs that it seems a non-trivial part of the electorate across the entire political spectrum is really looking for.

      I met her at a small fundraiser during her first Senate election. She has it.

  11. West of the Cascades says:

    Gillibrand / Franken. And hope that Trump/Pence run again – I would prepare a 30-gallon kettle of popcorn to watch that VP debate.

  12. West of the Cascades says:

    No Schiff for VP, please … he needs to spend at least four years as House Intel Committee Chair running the corruption of the outgoing Trump administration to ground and hanging it around the GOP’s neck for the next decade.

    • kvs says:

      I have no feelings on him for VP. But that’s a silly reason to disqualify him from consideration.

      The VP nominee is going to only be on the campaign for about 5 months at the end of 2020. By then, the investigation will have either paid off or gone nowhere.

      Plus, the House investigation isn’t going to accomplish shit. The action is in the Senate.

  13. rfm says:

    Can’t wait for “SHE’S A BLUE DOG” dudes. Who will all be Manchin supporters.

  14. Hells Littlest Angel says:

    I fear that American sexism would defeat her, but I’d support and vote for her anyway.

  15. Denverite says:

    In an abundance of caution, what do we know about Gillibrand’s email management policies and protocols?

  16. kvs says:

    It certainly sounds like she gets it. That’s quite the turnaround from when she was appointed.

  17. Snuff curry says:

    “We visit together at Bible study and we talk about our families and things outside of the Senate,” says Joni Ernst, the Iowa Republican whose campaign ads touted her experience castrating pigs.

    Apropos of nothing, but I love this.

    • Snuff curry says:

      Gillibrand is a bit of a gender essentialist. “Just literally having 51 percent of women in Congress representing the diversity of our country: You would have different issues raised, different solutions being offered, you’d have less partisan bickering,” she says. “Because our disposition is to help. When we do our legislation, we’re not trying to figure out how can I use this to run against you; we say, ‘How can we pass this bill to help both of our constituents?’ Our economy would be stronger, because we’d be dealing with things like paid leave and equal pay legitimately, as opposed to just using it as a talking point.”

      Traister doesn’t know what essentialism is, though.

      “The guys run every time. I can’t tell you how many 30-year-old dudes believe they should be senator or president.”

      Uh-oh.

      • Origami Isopod says:

        “I can’t tell you how many 30-year-old dudes believe they should be senator or president.”

        “Lord, give me the confidence of a mediocre white man.”

      • Rob in CT says:

        “The guys run every time. I can’t tell you how many 30-year-old dudes believe they should be senator or president.”

        I saw that line and grinned. Also applicable to 70-year old men who have never done anything worthwhile in their lives, of course…

  18. sleepyirv says:

    I vaguely remember Gilibrand being called a Wall Street shill, without remembering why. A quick google search turned up this Atlantic article saying Gilibrand was a future Presidential candidate back in 2013 (which naturally feels like a million years ago). So she took a bunch of Wall Street money, tried to fiddle with the Volcker rule, and got called out on it by John Oliver. It’s not much (and not recent), but it’s not nothing.

    I suppose it will come down to how voters feel about adaptable politicians and how good Gilibrand is at adapting. So far she has a great record at that, but it would be nice if she sent a strong message that she will have a Main Street, not Wall Street, focused Treasury department.

  19. Abbey Bartlet says:

    I’ve been on the K GIll 2024 train for ages. She’s fantastic at retail politics, evolves with new information, smart as a whip, hardworking, 1000 watt smile. And I wish it didn’t matter, but, well, she’s pretty hot.

    • Snuff curry says:

      Charisma matters, sort of, and she has it. I’m generally incredibly uncomfortable listening to pols speechify — public speaking and public performances tend to fill me with embarrassment no matter the quality of art or entertainment — but I like her, even scripted. I’ve seen her before but I’m more familiar with hearing her on the radio and I was surprised by her age. 2024 is exactly right. She has plenty of time. The linked article is interesting because the angle is to reassure us she’s not a wonk but a working, bread-and-butter sort, angling for bipartisanship for also staking out a position, particularly these past two months, as hardnosed and ideological when necessary. I would kill for a “Romanes, They Go the Fuck Home” campaign slogan.

      • Abbey Bartlet says:

        2024 is exactly right.

        No, no, dude, I want her for 2020 now. 2024 would imply either another 4 years of the GOP or a one-term Dem.

        • rhino says:

          Beating the forces of evil in 2018 and 2020 are existentially important, and people need to internalize it.

          There will be no long game, if we don’t win the short game.

  20. Joe_JP says:

    As someone who was supportive of her when some didn’t want her to be appointed senator, I have long seen her as promising. Hillary Clinton is her mentor, so those who love Clinton should be happy. Gillibrand has a good political sense while continuously trying to find support across the aisle.* So she can sell that “uniting” line some want. The article explains how she is comfortable using religious imagery too.

    My only concern is that she won’t be seen as properly skilled in foreign policy (being secretary of state was useful there) but given her likely opposition and the record of various recent presidential candidates, that seems something she can handle. Plus, her efforts to deal with sexual abuse in the military and other issues provides some bona fides there too.

    * One conservative Republicans senator compared her to a ‘honey badger’ [the animal] for her persistence. In her autobiography, she said that she basically took it as a compliment.

  21. Abbey Bartlet says:

    I’m beginning to think we need a running open thread for 2020.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.