Kirsten Gillibrand will get beat badly in the Senate primary when she actually has to run!

Nothing there!

Mark this post!!

The stock market will actually reach new lows this year. The market will start to recover 6 - 9 months before the economy does.

Gillibrand will win nomination -- even in New York, people are not nearly as anti-Second Amendment as most folks on DU. This is a pretty good choice, I think ... I like what I'm hearing about Gillibrand so far.

And ... the DOW will probably be stagnant in the 6000s or lower for several years more to come. The massive, massive deficits we're about to run-up will kill economic growth for a decade.

You can always come back to say I told you so, but I'm afraid nobody will particularly care then either.

I'll mark it.

That reminds me, I do have a bookmark folder with old predictions from here at DU such as there would be a coup by Bush or martial law. I have to look at it again.

Funny.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2253774 (So- who thinks Bush is leaving in 2009?) Actually, I never doubted he would leave.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2320781 (Bush Will Start War to Try For "Rally Round the Flag", Ships to be SUNK)
"Now that the GOP is clearly going to lose the House, which means investigation and impeachment of Bush..." How did that ever work out?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2871827#top (Its OVER...The BUSHCO will be forced to RESIGN or be IMPEACHED. Make Way for President Pelosi...) I must have missed that one, too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2863360 (Fine Print in Defense Bill Opens Door to Martial Law) I thought it said "Marital" Law.

He had already crashed everything. What was left to do?

;)

Powerball is 11.

If these work I want half :P

Here is the real winner!

8 11 17 35 40 PB=21

;)

to be a home run pick, but it probably won't help Paterson keep the governor's seat.

and if she gets to know people throught out the state and votes the way most New Yorkers want her to, then I think she will be okay. I doubt most NYers are single issue voters, either. I'm also betting that as a state wide senator (rather than as a house member representing only a conservative district) that she will moderate some on guns. She's also an attractive and intelligent person who was able to defeat a GOP incumbent when first elected. I don't take her as a pushover.

Link: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17877.html

and wait for Gillibrand to actually BE a Senator for a while before feeding her to the lions.

Until then, I see nothing wrong with quoting Politico as they are part of the White House press pool and has broken
quite a bit of news this past election year, such as the choice of Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff. Of course, DUers
then dismissed it as gossip at the time, but we know better now, don't we?

Why is it such a small but uninformed number of DU'ers insist on posting crap about Democrats?

You aren't even aware of her actual record and need to rely on CRAP from Politico.

I am quite aware of her actual record, as highlighted on both CNN and MSNBC. As a Congresswoman, she was anti-GLBT rights,
anti-gun control, and pro-Bush tax cuts. It appears you aren't aware of her actual record, not me. Unless you have proof that
what Politico says is untrue, I'm afraid what you're saying to me is CRAP.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him read that which contradicts what he wants to believe.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8140772&mesg_id=8140981

The latest red herring is attacking anything from Politico.com, as if the New York Times and Washington Post don't have
right-wing opinion columnists who post objectionable things on a regular basis against Michelle and Barack. As if Politico
isn't part of the White House press pool, as if they didn't break the news of Rahm Emanuel as Obama's WH chief of staff
pick, as if they haven't been a legitimate source of general political information during the entire election year.

Wingnuts are not the only ones who have mastered the art of denial, eh? ;)

I pointed that out to a DU'er who knee-jerk attacks anything linked to HuffPost when he posted a piece from HuffPost. Of course as with most unpleasant truths, that was ignored.

The arguments at DU often follow the same pathologic pattern of (1) impugn the source and (2) launch personal attacks. No substantive discussion of the subject of hand mind you, just subterfuge followed by ridiculous posturing. We saw it all through primaries from this faction in the Dem Party here at DU who insist on their white-washed reality and will fight to the death any hint that that vision doesn't hold water. Hillary is 44 dammit! I rest my case.

Good thing Obama Is 44, eh? ;)

Below is an edited sig line pilfered from Jenmito with a ;) and a nod.

Cheers!

Ah, the memories. :rofl:

and researching this pick, I couldn't agree with you more.

I'm unhappy that I took the pick as being "okay with me" at face value, having skimmed her skimpy issue positions... I thought she was someone I could support, but it looks like I'm going to have to retract my view.

I'm not sure what Gillibrand stands for in her scant two years and a record that seems extremely confused at best, ambitiously directed towards her own political future at worst. Her positions miraculously change when politically expedient (or are oddly out of whack when no one is looking), and even the hint of such modus operandi makes me uncomfy. I hope it's all attributable to something honorable, like naivete. No, can't be that, we don't accept that, especially in those who have had fine educations and come from political families...

Gillibrand's former law firm, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, (the one she worked for before holding her first, ever elected office) has been the largest single donor to her campaigns, and, oddly enough, the senior partner of the firm contributed $25,000 to Paterson's campaign committee on December 23, (last month). Oddly enough squared: the senior partners' son (and partner in the firm) just happened to contribute another $25,000 to Paterson on the very same day (last month). Right after Obama confirmed Clinton as his choice for Secretary of State and the governor was considered his pick for the Senate seat. Funny how things like that happen.

And we are condemning Blago for "pay for play" when this sort of thing in NY is just... what... cool? Not worth asking about at least? Okay. Call me completely uninformed about politics because I don't get how this is not at least worth questioning, or holding to the same standards that we say we don't approve of...

$50,000 goes to Paterson from Gillibrand's single highest contributor (and former company), Kennedy gets uncharacteristically embarrassed and waylayed at the last minute (for no explicable reason).

The following day, Patterson makes a surprise announcement (early) and wouldn't you know - Clinton just happened to be able to show up in Manhattan 24 hours later on Sunday to attend a congratulatory brunch for her replacement, along with Chuck Schumer (who was apparently less than subtle in his support for Gillibrand) and David Paterson... seems like a power play, a pay for play or a grudge - or all three. I know I'll get railed for it, it has happened before... : )

This just seems all too... convenient to be pure coincidence... Kennedy's awkward withdrawal seemed to catch everyone off guard (including Kennedy and Paterson), and doesn't match with Kennedy's behaviours or actions... ever.

I could be wrong, certainly, but this whole thing just seems to have some shade of ugly on it...

Yeah, my dad wasn't a Republican powerbroker who used to work for Al D'Amato. Maybe if he did, I'd be
a DINO political opportunist with Al D'Amato as a political godfather, too. :rofl:

Fascinating.

You need to check your math, son.

previous holder.

I love how some "progressives" can't wait to hate.

Your hatred of liberals/progressives is duly noted. No run along and praise Sen. Tracy Flick's support of retail access to AK-47s
and her wanting the extension of the Bush tax cuts until it becomes politically expedient to pull a Mitt Romney, which should be
within the next week, if not sooner.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

which wasn't untrue.

Regards

He may beat her if he can outraise her..

Gillibrand will win the Senate seat. The only people I hear bitching about her are outside of her district. She has done a great job here in the 20th, and she'll prove herself to be a capable Senator.

If anything, Coumo will primary Patterson if Patterson looks like he won't win a general election.

2010 NY Democratic Primary: *=Incumbent

Governor: David Paterson (*) 43%
Andrew Cuomo 50%
Others: 7%

Senate: Kirsten Gillibrand (*) 32%
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. 51%
Carolyn McCarthy 17%


2010 NY Republican Primary:

Governor: Rudolph Giuliani (unopposed)
Senate: Peter King (unopposed)



General Election:

Governor: Andrew Cuomo (D) 45%
Rudolph Giuliani (R) 39%
Tom Golisano (I) 14%
Others 2%

Senate: Robert F. Kennedy (D) 58%
Peter King (R) 39%
Other 3%

but if I were a betting man, I'd bet the farm on you being wrong.

2010 will be a bloodbath.

And at least I can stand both of them. It would be nice to have someone who either 1. Doesn't think downstate ends at the beginning of Wall Street and 2. doesn't behave as though downstate is a cash cow to be milked and screwed.

Regards

So much for that prediction.

:shrug:

Regards

She announced it on MSNBC.

Hillary.

but, I won't mark this post (sorry).

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jn3kCOceMPF7iuG4FzHbl_EgrQZgD95TU4N80

Two years ago, she took on entrenched incumbent Republican Rep. John Sweeney, who had deep ties to the GOP in New York. She upset him in a brawl considered one of the nastiest campaigns in the country. Last fall, she faced the millionaire former chairman of the state Republican party, Sandy Treadwell, and beat him badly in the Republican district.

Nothing negative to say about Gilli. I wish her the best but I think that if Mark Green or RFK, Jr. goes against her she will lose.

KansasVoter won't vote in the New York primary or special election for Senator!

nt

Can her Blue Dogginess be white-washed to become more palatable to voters? I'm guessing you're betting on it. However, as with all variable unknowns in life, the correct answer is only time will tell.

Because her voting record in the 110th doesn't reflect that.

She was ANTI gay rights all along until she wasn't recently in her full-court refurbishing as a palatable candidate for 2010.

Gillibrand questioned on weak gay rights record:
http://www.metroweekly.com/gauge/last_word/2009/01/new-yorks-new-senator-gillibra.html

She is very liberal on issues that actually matter.

100% from AFSCME

96% from AFL-CIO

0% from NRTL

GLBT issues are very important to me.

We know what is going to happen with immigration already.

You know I had it in the text of my post already, linked to it, and added it in the header ... nice try backing off your declaration that these issues don't matter

You had gun control and immigration. You edited in gay rights after I said that the other 2 issues were not as important as others.



Again, GLBT rights are very important to me.

That is what I responded to. You then deceptively edited your post, added gay rights, and are now saying that I said that I don't support gay rights.


Nice edit.

You slipped in your white-washing of Gillibrand's record.

Oops!

You must be really angry that you were caught.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8140253&mesg_id=8142645

Now run along with your ridiculous display of subterfuge trying to cover your own ass for a simple mistake you made.

Timestamps don't lie.

But thanks for adding your two-centsworth about something you know nothing about. That decidedly tribal yet ignorant attempted gotcha response always adds so much to the conversation.

Film at 11.

But since you've declared these issues are unimportant, I can understand why you'd rail against discussion of same.

Is this how you think arguments are "won?"

I said this: "If those are your top issues then, no, I guess you ain't gonna like her" when you said she had conservative positions on gun control and immigration. You did not have gay rights in the post until you edited it.

You edited your post to be deceptive and to give the impression that I didn't think GLBT rights were important or a "top" issue.

Nice try.

issues as not being important, but it's already out there and you're furious finger-pointing to cover your ass is just ridiculous.

You apparently got caught up in your kneejerk white-washing of Gillibrand's spotty record and slipped up. Oops.

Were not "top" issues do you not understand?

You must be REALLY embarrassed that you were caught.



EDITED FOR SPELLING

That's truly your problem, not mine, and illustrates how absurd the mindless white-washing of records is. Best pay closer attention to the cheerleading you got goin' on before sticking your foot in you mouth again.

Before you edited it?

Simple question. (And the Mods can tell)

It was always in my text; I added the link and edited the header to include what was already in the text. Perhaps you didn't read the text and just read the header? If so, that's your problem and please do ask to see my original post, but better start spinning your next barrage of subterfuge when you are further embarrassed for your own slip-up.

I read the text. It wasn't there until you edit your post to add it.

Nice try.

That along with her rabid ANTI gun control and Lou Dobbs'esqe immigration stances make her a wingnutty candidate IMO. And all the drama and hoopla and cowbell and finger-pointing does not distract from that.

You are clearly prepared to defend anything regarding Ms. Gilibrand's record, but you have lost sight of the fact that this is a political discussion board occupied by varying opinions, and mine is that these issues are deal-breakers for me. You said they weren't important to you and then backed off, but they are real and resonate. I EXPECT all Democrats to be pro-choice and so I am not moved by the high-five from women's groups.

Human Rights Campaign Statement on Gillibrand’s Appointment as Senator


http://www.wktv.com/news/local/38229984.html

She didn't have to say anything about gay marriage when she was appointed. But she did. That is encouraging, at least.

Damn, there's hijacking a thread; and then there's waterboarding it, putting bamboo slivers under its fingernails, and finally cutting its nuts off!

She's mine too, and although she was my second choice after CK, I'm not that impressed with her.

it doesn't look so graceful at the start, but I'd like to see her (Kennedy) take and win the seat through an election. I know I'm in the minority, but... I heard someone say once, on the 3rd of January, "They said - this day would never come. They said - our sights were set too high."

It's not a bad thing to challenge the status quo. Whether Kennedy has been turned off of still wanting to serve in public office is tenuous at best. I hope she rebounds... I truly do.

.
.

..post it even if you turn out to be wrong, ok?

I was looking through Google to for old DU threads to see if a certain DU'er that I miss may have posted (just to try and get some kind of idea of how long he's been gone..)

And I ran across a 2006 "Senate guess thread" that was so interesting!

We had DU'ers saying things like .."Casey has name recognition in PA, but unfortunately it's a shoe-in for Santorum"

And I saw threads saying ..."Menendez has money, but Kean (sp) is the better candidate and will win"

Also saw all kinds of threads about how Martin O'Malley would never win the Maryland Governor's seat..

How "McCaskill was awesome, but that she just can't pull it off"..

And many, many more....

So you see. Sometimes ~~~ .... we just never know what will happen two years down the road.

~~~~~~ Me ---> <-- My buddy Kansas

What a fly weight! It's clear that Daddy's people have shoved her up the political ladder. :(

without the nice liberals in Manhanttan and the other Burroughs.

It's not upstate vs. downstate but Right Wing vs. Progressive.

:thumbsup:

I'm not enthralled with Schumer either.

Regards

more Democrats approved than disapproved, by a 41-to-35 margin. Upstaters approved of the appointment 55 percent-to-25 percent, while New Yorkers approved 41-34. So "progressives" from out of state have about 2 years to convince NY Democrats that McCarthy, a former Republican, is a better candidate.

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/poll-republicans-like-gillibrand-pick-more-than-dems-2009-01-26.html

A snapshot poll. Just wait until she gives another one of her Junior High speeches? Then take a poll. :eyes:

Give it your best shot.

;)

And why?

Thanks in advance.

.. and then find a name for you.

I don't have to do much but hope for some qualified liberal to throw their hat in the ring.

She's no HRC. Not by a long shot. :thumbsdown:

:shrug:

of a Blue Dog/New Way/DLCer. :-)

but a Blue Dog/New Way/DLCer is what NY has and will still after 2010. :)

choose a progressive and/or liberal. :hi:

:)

And a sad day that will be.

A few of us liberals are continuing to fight the trend but the Military Industrial Complex is so damn powerful. :(

I think you should move up here with us, ShortnFiery! Become a New Yawker :evilgrin:

:hi:

My hubby would love to live in New York. Be careful what you wish for ... maybe within the next decade. :-)

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/112748/evan_bayh_forming_blue_dog_caucus_in_the_senate/

Likely targets for Bayh would include moderate Democrats like Sens. Mark Pryor (Ark.), Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Ben Nelson (Neb.), Jim Webb (Va.), and Sen.-elect Mark Warner (Va.).

I fear that increasing number of Blue Dogs will push our entire party too far to the corporate right. But I know, you'd say that's all part of my marxist/far left comedy routine. ;)

Thanks for helping me clear that up. :hi:

have no idea who's a "liberal" in this state, which of them might be available to run, and which of them will be up to the challenge.

How's Nita Lowey doin'? Think she can get enough Utica votes to challenge Kirsten? Maybe McCarthy's gun control mania will get those Watertown hunters on board?

Maybe Charlie Rangel would like to give up his House seniority and arm-bending power to risk it all to be the new face and junior Senator working for Schumer?

Or maybe that liberal guy who went down in a blaze of far-less-than-glory when he challenged Hillary over her war vote and got shot down with something like 10% of the primary vote. OK, maybe it was 20%, but he still proved a "liberal" can't win in this state against an tough incumbant woman with vast millions of campaign cash.

Gillibrand is whip-smart, young, energetic, and knows how to campaign and raise money. Unless something goes very wrong, she'll be my Senator for a long time, and I see no reason to be upset about that.

So, tough shit-- worry about your own Senators.

However, with respect, if this gal is "whip smart" I'm not seeing it.

Perhaps in the future I will get a more complete impression of her, but my first was not GOOD. :shrug:

Some of us have been pissing upwind trying to simply say that for better or worse she's in the Senate and just may stay in the Senate for a long time, and there's nothing we can do about it for now, if we even wanted to do something about it.

So, all the doom predicting and hand wringing could wait until she's spent some time as a Senator and we see just how she does.

(the Lamont and Tasini fiascos should have shown us that the liberal wing of the party, which I am actually a member of no matter what it looks like, just isn't all that good at getting things done)

She kicked Republican ass twice already in a hard area of NY for any Democrats to do so, and she did it on her own. Also, according to her report from On the Issues, she's way more liberal than what you're giving her credit for.

It's not her fault that Paterson chose her above everyone else for our Senate seat in NY. Can't say as I blame him. Kirsten Gillibrand has proven to be a Republican opponent's worst nightmare.

but clearly is "a light weight." Yes, she can communicate but it's NOT CONVINCING that she is a person of great depth.

Yes, who put the wig on that Democratic Palin? :P

Because you're wrong here.

Mark this post!!


:rofl:

:crazy:

You see. This situation isn't the same as Lieberman's situation. You can't just have her overtly supported by the Republicans since that will reflect badly on Patterson in his own primary. And Patterson will want payback for appointing her, and if she stabs him in the back she isn't going to win her primary without his support. Their fates are now tied to one another.

:rofl:

wrong with that. She is somewhat like Hillary in that respect. So, I will not count her out at all.

Underestimate her (and the institutional support she will have from Democrats...remember, Schumer is on her side and THAT matters) at your peril.

I just hope that the good people of New York State can field a non-Blue Dog democrat in the Primary to contest her. :shrug:

although there's a high prevalence of them in the 'progressive' areas downstate with enclaves in Woodstock, New Paltz and Rhinebeck. Correlates directly with income, funny how that works - could it be cause-and-effect ? Salon radicals, anyone ? Still driving the SUV to the protest meeting ? Wearing black ?

so to speak!

McCarthy raised about $1.3 million for the 2008 election. Gillibrand raised over $4.5 million.

Which is the sort of thing that happens when you support Bush's tax cuts.

Rp

why the hell can't they just stick to their jobs instead of trying to interject their asses into everything that goes on.