Now that the midterms are over (kind of), the moment many of us have been dreading has arrived. One by one, the nation's most ambitious people, feet having been dangled in the electoral hot tub— some more subtly than others— will decide if they like the temperature, and many (mark my words- this time it will be MANY) will decide to run for president. The hydrogen fuel cell bus to the Democratic Convention in 2020 will be clown-car-full of faces old and new, some who’ve been fixtures in American politics for decades and others who, let’s say, for instance launched a series of legal and PR attacks against the president in the course of representing a porn star that said president used to shtup.
Perhaps more cringeworthy even than the impending parade of group-tested rollouts— several of which will no doubt elicit little reaction beyond "oh honey, no”— are the jackass public calls— generally made by jackasses, in public— to "draft" bad candidates. I’d be happy to be proven wrong, and there are candidates I quite like! But, to inaugurate what is likely to be a truly painful, and painfully long primary season, (and also to inaugurate this blog), here is my shortlist of people who are probably running, but for whom it would be a terrible idea for Democrats to nominate. It is written in order of “least bad idea” to “worst bad idea”, and I’ll work my way down starting with today’s candidate, who seems like a good idea at first, but with whom there are a lot of problems just under the surface. To these bad candidates I say: “Just, you know, please don’t run! It's gonna suck for everybody!” I'll try to keep this as much about the qualities in each person that I think would hinder their chances in a general election (probably against Trump, though at this point who knows) but consider this fair warning that my personal politics may make an appearance, as they are exceedingly wont to do; just ask my several remaining friends. Welcome one and all, uhh party's over.
10. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
Whomever Democrats choose to nominate— but especially if it’s someone lacking a long and consistently positive record of votes or service— will need to be someone with Obama-level charisma, or at the very least a great story, and frankly Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who has a pattern of wild changes in policy positions, is neither magnetic nor possessing of a backstory that approaches “inspirational” or even, to most people, “relatable”. Born to lobbyist/attorney parents, Gillibrand went from private school on to Dartmouth, and then from law school straight to an elite corporate firm, where she worked on the account of Phillip Morris Tobacco, a company she continued to represent through her time as partner at another major firm and until she quit to run for Congress in 2006.
I dusted off the ole calculator and figured out that Gillibrand actually would have been on the Phillip Morris legal team in 1993 when the company made use of their broad network of lawyers and consultants to found “The Advancement of Sound Science Center”, a massive lobbying group the stated purpose of which is to "encourage the public to question – from the grassroots up – the validity of scientific studies,” primarily focused on undermining public confidence as to whether cigarettes really cause cancer and whether climate change is caused by humans. Charming! It would also appear that Gillibrand’s father, Douglas, supposedly a powerful if rather shady figure in the famously shady New York state politics of his day, also lobbied on behalf of Phillip Morris and was at one point on a $100,000 yearly retainer to fend for big tobacco in Albany’s legislative backrooms, presumably in addition to other clients and presumably at a time when $100,000 was fairly serious dough. Did Kirsten inherit this relationship, or do father and daughter simply share a deep appreciation for one massive tobacco industry parent company? (Treat yourself to a Virginia Slim and let me know what you think in the comments below)
Gillibrand got her start in politics on Hillary Clinton’s first senate campaign, cementing her place in that dynasty's good graces not only through her work and her courtship of other New York Clinton acolytes like Andrew Cuomo, but also by donating $12,000 to Hillary's campaigns. Gillibrand, who is married to a British venture capitalist and financial consultant, reportedly underwent a multi-million dollar makeover to her personal brand, including her campaign’s hiring of style consultants and nutritionists in order to revamp her image and help secure her election to the Senate seat to which she had been appointed when Hillary Clinton was named Secretary of State. Personally, I’m all for people kicking their health and style up a notch, but the project is rumored to have been so expensive that it calls to mind John Edward’s $400 haircut, to which voters didn’t respond very well (luckily, cuz look who he turned out to be).
Scandals of a different kind have long percolated in Gillibrand’s New York primaries over her acceptance of tens of thousands of dollars in donations from Phillip Morris employees to both her congressional and senatorial campaigns. And though she's tried to run away from her voting record in the House since she’s been in the Senate and had real (obvious) presidential ambitions, here's a sampling from Wikipedia of her key votes as a member of Congress from 2006 to 2008:
"She opposed New York's plans to issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, and voted in favor of legislation that would withhold federal funds from immigrant sanctuary cities... [she also] voted for a bill that limited information-sharing between federal agencies about firearm purchasers, and received a 100 percent rating from the NRA."
Sound like a solid candidate for the Democrats in 2020? No matter how she's reoriented herself in the Senate (and says she's embarrassed about these House votes), she cast these votes only ten years ago. Hardly an eternity. Not the kind of "proven track record" a solid Democratic presidential candidate ought to have.
Perhaps known best nationally for her instrumental role in championing her old squash buddy Al Franken's somewhat bungled ouster from the Senate, Gillibrand may furthermore have some trouble defining herself on her own terms in a country in which millions of people are apparently quite comfortable tacitly endorsing Donald Trump's penchant for non-consensual perineal fondling. The way it was handled, drawing attention to herself as chief inquisitor and to the transgressions of Democratic leaders was seen by some to have helped elevate “both side-ist” arguments about harassment and transgressive behavior in government generally, when in reality, the misogyny problem among Republicans, both in policy and in practice, especially with regard to *ahem* the president, is obviously so much worse and we on the left should never fail to define them accordingly. It is arguable that despite its mishandling, Franken’s departure was necessary so that Democrats wouldn’t have a credibility problem in the #metoo era. Whatever the case, the episode sure helped get Gillibrand on TV.
Were she to run, Trump, like the learning-challenged yet savantishly intuitive 7 year old that he is, will uncannily unearth a treasure trove of these weaknesses, boil them down to offensive chants, and redefine Gillibrand faster than you can say "white women will vote Republican anyway”. Imagine Democrats focusing their attacks against Trump in the lead up to 2020 on the sexual harassment and assault he almost certainly committed and falling into the “outrage traps” set by right wing trolls like Trump, haphazardly litigating decades old gropings like the Kavanaugh saga on steroids. It’s easier to do, but concentrating on Trump’s character issues rather than focusing in on progressive solutions to people’s problems didn’t work so well in 2016.
THE BOTTOM LINE? She’s gonna run. She discarded her recent denials last week, cringeworthily pseudo-dodging a 2020 question on NBC’s Morning Joe, saying, “for me it’s a moral question, Mika”, almost as if she wasn’t really on the show to promote her new children’s book about great women leaders in American history.
It’s clear Gillibrand is a good Senator. She's been a powerful advocate for survivors of sexual assault in the military and in universities, she has been right on most issues since leaving the House, I feel like she's a good person, AND I have a good friend who works on her staff, so I almost feel a little bad writing this. However, in addition to her less than consistent record as a progressive and her creepy, optically disastrous history as a hired hand for some very evil corporate bosses, “establishment” Democrats have something bigger figure out: People— by which I mean voters, and certainly the progressive base of the party whose turnout is needed in big numbers in purple places in order for Democrats to win— are sick to death of the party’s Ivy League, machine politics, middle of the road, party-ascendant leaders who not only cannot credibly claim to relate to working people or minorities (reflected in their unwillingness to espouse progressive policies until it’s politically expedient to do so) but whose records suggest that they can’t seem to figure out where they stand on basic issues until after consulting the polls. Rest assured, Kirsten Gillibrand is exactly who Trump wants to run against.
Even though this video of her saying fuck a bunch of times made me like her a lot more.
Moving on to number 9 on down... including ERIC HOLDER, MICHAEL AVENATTI, CORY BOOKER and MORE …
Comentários