Blogs and Stories
The Fight Over Hillary's Seat
Amy Sussman / Getty Images; Mario Tama / Getty Images
Carolyn Maloney should get out of the way and not challenge Kirsten Gillibrand for New York’s Senate seat, says Democratic fundraiser Andrew Tobias. Five reasons why Maloney’s primary move would hurt the party.
Howard Dean tells a great story of a late-night call with Al Gore right after he had been knocked out of the 2004 Democratic presidential primary. Gore let him vent for a while at the rough treatment he had received, but eventually—when Howard asked angrily, “Tell me why I should be supporting this party?”—the former vice president said: “It’s not about you, Howard.” And, Howard always concludes this story, “Of course he was right. It’s about the country.”
If Gillibrand and Maloney square off, each would inevitably be saying tough things about the other until just a few weeks before the general election—very possibly opening the door for the Republican to walk right in.
So if you’re Carolyn Maloney, who has paid her dues nine times over—this is her ninth term representing New York’s 14th District—and who chairs the Joint Economic Committee, and has any number of other truly notable distinctions to her credit—you are likely steamed. Arguably (or, let’s be honest: inarguably, in your mind), YOU are the woman Governor David Paterson should have chosen to fill Hillary Clinton’s Senate seat. Not Caroline Kennedy and not, certainly, a freshman congresswoman.
Whether one agrees with that or not, let’s just take it as a given. (And let’s honor Carolyn Maloney for her service and talents.)
The fact is that, right or wrong, the nod went to Gillibrand, who, like Maloney, is also a remarkable talent, and that both President Barack Obama and New York’s senior senator, Chuck Schumer, have endorsed her.
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
I am bored with and troubled by Washington based consultants opining on the primary process in states like NY. Gillibrand was imposed upon us by an unpopular, unelected governor. She is basically unknown and out of touch with many New Yorkers. Moloney is an intriguing candidate. I look forward to a spirited, democratic primary in my state that puts the small D back in New York state politics.
Kirsten will win because, like her predecessor Hillary Clinton, she is smart, funny, caring, thoughtful, open-minded and tough. And like Hillary, the more voters get to meet her, the greater her support. This is reflected in the growing number of endorsements from opinion leaders, progressive organizations and unions across the state.
Carolyn Maloney should come to her senses and stay in the House where she has seniority and committee assignments important to New York. Her willingness to throw this all away to challenge a competent, effective progressive younger woman is, at best, distressing, and way bad for New York.
Given New York's history of electing Republicans following bruising Democratic primaries, an ad hoc group of Democratic activists, encouraged Maloney not to challenge Senator Gillibrand. Maloney should take heed and not plunge Democrats into a costly, nasty and divisive primary which could endanger the fragile 60 vote majority in the Senate.
"A competent, progressive younger woman"!!!! Okay. Now that is smart politics, considering that the biggest block of reliable voters who show up at the polls is folks over fifty. Are those of us over that age over the hill? Now, I am starting a Grannies against Gillibrand group!" RRLierberma -- what is this agist tripe you are peddling?
Again, Gillibrand is "not out of touch with many New Yorkers." What you mean is she is unknown and "out of touch" with downstate NYer's. Look North--there's an entire State up there (and it's a very different constituency)!
I didn't know we had to pass residency tests in NY State, but since you
mentioned it, I am a way Upstate Upstater. We knew about Gillibrand's "Annie Got her Gun" anti-immigrant persona before she was appointed.to Clinton's seat. She hasn't exactly been visible up here in God's country,
After reading the article, I sent Carolyn Maloney a contribution.
Carolyn Maloney is superior to Gillibrand in experience, intellect and integrity. Gillibrand was never elected to the Senate and spent barely two years int he House before her absurd appointment by the idiot Paterson. Maloney is much more representative of New York Democrats and will win the primary. Unlike Gillibrand, Maloney is not beholden to the Obama wishy-washy machine and might get things done.
Let me guess, you don't travel much in NY do you? If you knew the rest of the State, beyond NYC and LI, you would know that Gillibrand is a much stronger Statewide candidate. There is a reason she has a 68 % approval rating in her former district--from Dems, Independents, and Republicans. Maloney "might get things done?" She will have NO seniority in the Senate. Like it or not, the ability to propose and advance legislation is all based on seniority. Worse, she will have much less time to build it. Tobias makes very astute points based on political realities, not simplistic platitudes about choice and personality.
Mr. Tobias,
As Senator Gillibrand was placed into her Senate seat, it seems only fair that the New York VOTERS get to choose their representative, rather than Democratic fundraisers or the also unelected Govenor of the State. By your logic, Barack Obama shoud have stepped out of the Presidential primary after New Hampshire.
I would likely vote for Ms. Maloney, as Ms. Gillibrand does not seem representative of progressive politics so I do hope there is a real primary rather Democrats playing favorites. That favoritism is one of the reasons I've never registered as a Democrat until then Senator Obama ran in the primary.
Yet another inaccurate post about Gillibrand's progressive record. Please see the posts below--it's not true. She has a strong progressive record. There is a reason she has been endorsed by multiple progressive organizations. Too many people believe media talking points at face value and do not do their own research.
Kind of short-sighted.
Maloney has a proven record and isn't a blue dog like Gillibrand is. If you're about the "progressive agenda" and keeping Dems in power, solidifying its base in Senate - where it needs a consistent override vote - is just as important as the number of seats it picks up or retains in Congress.
I am, of course, one of the enemy but I feel like Maloney deserved the nomination and still deserves the seat. She's faithfully served New York for a long time and has done great things for her state and her district. Patterson's pick was cynical and pandering, only done to try and get support form outside NYC (not that he has much within it). You should also know by now endorsements are fairly meaningless. Schumer endorsed her because Obama did. Obama did it just to end the awful news item. It's that simple.
Please stop repeating the misrepresentation of Gillibrand's voting record. Her voting record is solidly progressive. She opposed the war in Iraq, is a staunch advocate of women's rights, pay equity and choice; gay rights; stem cell research; increasing the minimum wage; and expanding affordable housing, Head Start and SCHIP. She is also greatly respected for her experience in financial services and banking. She has been endorsed by numerous progressive democratic issue-groups, including the ACLU, the League of Conservation Voters, EMILY'S List, NARAL, the Sierra Club, and the AFL- CIO. Now that she is representing the entire State, instead of a completely different constituency in a conservative district, she is an openly passionate advocate for the Party's progressive agenda. She is an asset to the Party, not the enemy.
Hey, Tobias, don't know if you've heard but we live in something called a democracy. It's where voters get to decide who represents them in Congress, not one guy who has appointment power or a party apparatus that finds it more convenient to do away with a primary system. In fact, that's how we got a black man elected President instead of the wife of a former one.
Frankly, we don't even know if you, Andrew Tobias, even lives in New York and yet you feel perfectly comfortable telling whom we New Yorkers should be our Senator. Can I respectfully tell you to butt out, which echoes Charlie Rangel's sentiments?
Gillibrand is a Republican hack in the guise of a flip-flopping Democrat appointed by a governor with the lowest approval rate in the country (which is saying a whole hell of a lot with Jim Gibbons and Mark Sanford in that august fellowship.) We don't want her, and many of us are thrilled that Maloney has the balls to buck the Tammany Hall style anointing by entering the race. So shut up and let the democratic process work its magic. Last I checked, this is still the frigging U.S. of A. and not Iran.
Ah...I've seen the rude "Pupster" before. Very comprehension challenged. For those of you open to actual information, here are some facts about Gillibrand, instead of the distorted media talking points people like Pupster like to repeat robotically:
*Gillibrand beat a four-term incumbent, in the most Republican-by-registration Congressional district in the state, by six points in 2006.
*She won re-election in 2008, against a self-funder who spent about $6 million, by almost 2-1, and now enjoys a 68% approval rating there for the excellent job she has done.
*Her voting record is solidly progressive. She opposed the war in Iraq, is a staunch advocate of women's rights, pay equity and choice; gay rights; stem cell research; increasing the minimum wage; and expanding affordable housing, Head Start and SCHIP. She is also greatly respected for her experience in financial services and banking. She has been endorsed by numerous progressive democratic issue-groups, including the ACLU, the League of Conservation Voters, EMILY'S List, NARAL, the Sierra Club, and the AFL- CIO.
*She also voted 93% party line, for progressive principles, while winning and holding a challenging seat in a conservative district. She is a real talent, and should be given a chance to develop into the strong leader that she can be. Maloney will lose her seniority and Chair on the Joint Economic Committee. How will that benefit NY? United, they will be a much stronger force for the State.
Anybody who could refer to Gillibrand as a "republican hack in the guise of a flip-flopping Democrat" doesn't have enough mental amperage to even be allowed to vote. Presumably, you can neither read nor think.
I don't know who you mean when you write "we dont' want her" -- unless you are referring to all ten of Maloney's supporters, half of whom are paid.
The assy " Iran" meme comes directly from Maloney's dumb talking points. Are you quite sure you're not just Joe Trippi sock puppets?
Are you kidding? Who cares who Schumer endorses. Am I supposed to be a blindfolded zombie or a voter? I hope Caroline enters the fray - she was horribly dissed by the press that went on their high horse "experience and deserving" campaign to bash her down. The more the merrier. We should have a whole host of accomplished and interesting choices to select as our nominee. You should be ashamed of this article. The boss party days were a disgrace, let's not go backwards.
"I hope Caroline enters the fray - she was horribly dissed by the press that went on their high horse "experience and deserving" campaign to bash her down."
What have you got against people with apposite experience? I hope you're not saying that experience is a bad thing.
"The more the merrier. We should have a whole host of accomplished and interesting choices to select as our nominee."
The more the merrier, huh??
You need a little history lesson. Supposing you enlighten yourself about the Senatorial primary of 1992, in which the two "progressive liberals" -- Gerry Ferraro and Liz Holtzman -- ate each other alive, causing the weakest candidate -- Robert Abrams -- to win the nomination, and causing Al D'Amato to win another term.
While you're enlightening yourself about what happens when you actually get "the more the merrier", see how D'Amato got voted into the Senate in the first place.
Perhaps the one who should be ashamed is the person who doesn't know about our electoral history.
Did you even bother to read Tobias' piece? Do you have an extra $40 million laying around to donate to the Party so that other resources can be used where desperately needed? Grow up.
"Carolyn Maloney is superior to Gillibrand in experience, intellect and integrity."
Really? Let's see:
Maloney= BA from mediocre Southern college. Law school dropout.
Gillibrand=BA Summa Cum Laude from Dartmouth, JD from UCLA, clerksheip with federal judge, associate at white shoe, Wall Street law firm. Counsel for HUD in Washington.
Maloney voted for the war, and against regulating Wall Street. This is not a surprise since her husband is a former Goldman Sachs bigwig who now has his own firm.
Clearly this isn't Iran, since nobody has stopped Maloney from pursuing this foolish, risky -- and costly -- vanity candidacy.
Maloney also supported the Patriot Act.
"You should also know by now endorsements are fairly meaningless."
ROTFLMAO! They are only meaningless to the likes of Maloney, who has no endorsements and is not likely to get any.
bobbiewick
You know New York politics well---Maloney has a rats ass chance in hell against Gillibrand her only chance is if Gillibrand pisses off Schummer who's the big dog in New York and that ain't likely
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
"No one represents liberal progressives more than Caroline Kennedy"
How does Caroline Kennedy who -- until she all but demanded to be appointed to that Senate seat as some kind of birthright -- has no political experience whatsoever (and very little voting experience, either) represent "liberal progressives" at all?
She represents Park Avenue society ladies who occasionally venture out to attend googoo meetings in support of "deserving causes."
" Patterson didn't get that and has been paying the price ever since. Obama threw Caroline under the bus and we haven't forgotten."
Governor Paterson wanted an experienced professional in that job, and you should want that as well. Aside from not including Caroline the Great in his cabinet, how did Obama throw her under the bus?
It's a shame that Caroline has managed to wreck several people's political careers besides her own. Big achievement. Not.
"Unfortunately, Caroline isn't coming back."
Good.
" "No, No, No! A fight is in order. Maloney is a proven talent. Maloney represents New York well. "
Maloney is not really a progressive liberal. For a partial documentation of this, see:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/13/752060/-Carolyn-Maloney:-Pro gressive
Caroline Kennedy!--- Camelot is dead babe it died with the brothers and Teddy finish it off on a bridge in Cape Cod! You can't bring back something by wishful thinking Caroline choose her life and it was not in politics, It was a good choice then it's a good choice now
I like Maloney, but she has zero chance at potus. Gillibrand would be my vote of 2012 potus, if Hillary doesn't take the bait.
Obama can slink back to the South Side and write another book of self love!
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Kirsten is a wonderful senator, was a wonderful congresswoman, and remains a wonderful woman. She is intelligent, articulate, dedicated to public service, and particularly dedicated to the entirety of New York State - a place which includes more than just the New York City area. As appealing as that may be, we need a senator for New York State, not a senator for New York City.
New York could not ask for a better freshman senator, for a woman with more potential, tenacity, and skill to accomplish what we need. I adore and respect Carolyn Maloney and the work she has done, but she is better serves - and serves better - as a titan in the House, representing her congressional constituency well, than as a freshman in the Senate. For all of us who appreciate the work Carolyn has done, it would be a great favor to us (and a source of great pride) to have her remain a congresswoman and permit Kirsten to continue her work in the Senate.
Andy Tobais knows whereof he speaks. History and experience have shown us in New York that a democratic primary in September produces a Republican victory in November. We stand to lose both of these women from Congress if Maloney pursues this race. History will record that she should have stayed where she finally has some real power and can do great good for New York. Gillibrand shows promise of becoming a great US Senator. Give her some time. She's smart, hard-working, and caring.
Excellent, excellent piece--thank you! There is a lot of misinformation floating around out there about Gillibrand's record, but she has a very strong progressive voting record, and has been endorsed by numerous progressive organizations. I live in her former district, and can attest to her 68% approval rating, which is based on her keen intelligence, relentless work ethic, and passionate dedication to public service. I notice that many idealistic bloggers blithely call for a primary "in the name of democracy!" You very clearly and forcefully detail why it is not so simple. There are political realities to consider, and since both reps support nearly identical agendas, is the risk worth the cost? No. It would be best for NY if they collaborate, and use their mutual talent and influence to achieve real solutions for the State and nation.
We might consider that in 1992, when Maloney was elected to the House of Representatives, she was hugely outspent by her Republican rival.
By contrast, Gillibrand has a history of needing to spend heavily to defeat Republicans. For her 2008 re-election, she even found it necessary to hold fund-raisers in London and Paris.
Ergo, from a strictly financial point of view, the sensible thing for Gillibrand to do for her party and her country is to resign from the race and insist Maloney run as the lone Democrat.
As an additional plus, Maloney is more reliable when it comes to protecting innocent human beings from gun totters.
"New York has a late primary."
Yeah, we all know that. It's Nelson Rockefeller's fault, and basically all it does is make primaries look much scarier than they should be.
You're a Democrat of national renown who happens to live in New York. Think you might encourage your friends at the state level to fix their amazingly broken election laws? I know it might threaten their eternal incumbency, but it might also make New York a lot more democratic.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.