Given the size and quality of the candidate field, the question is still more “why Candidate X” than “why not Candidate X.” I said early on that I’m partial to Gillibrand, but I need to see what sort of case she’s going to make for herself, and I need to see how that stacks up with the arguments that other candidates that I regard as worthy of serious consideration make for themselves.
I don’t know much about her, but that description alone makes me think that she’s not the best. Charisma (even the weird kind Trump has) is what wins presidential elections. I’ve never in my lifetime seen the sane, intelligent, but articulate person win over the one who got people most excited.
Trump got people excited, but Clinton didn’t. Obama got people excited, but neither McCain nor Romney did. Bush had charisma and got people excited, Gore and Kerry didn’t. Clinton was, Dole and Bush weren’t, but the latter was better than Dukakis. And Reagan definitely got people excited. (He was elected before I was born.)
When it comes to elections, it seems that the people care more about excitement and/or than they do about much else. Sure, if any candidate could buck the trend, it would be Trump. He did almost lose the first time.
But I would prefer someone who is charismatic and gets people excited. Just not Sanders, because he lost and fractured the Democrats. We also need unity, and I don’t think he can provide it.
She’s simply an opportunist… waits for someone with nothing to lose to come out and say something, and then when it looks like the coast is clear, she’ll do the same an hour later. She’s not someone I’d leave my house to vote for.
Can Duckworth run for PotUS or VP? She was born in Thailand.
Yes. Her father was a US citizen, so she’s had US citizenship her whole life.
The details of the Gillibrand - Franken imbroglio have less than zero interest for me.
And I am, barely, this-worldy enough to know that a pretty-faced woman might have the heart of Machiavelli.
***BUT ***…
The idea that a Senator in the #25 slot for “most likely to be the next Dem nominee” would throw the guy in the #24 slot under the bus primarily to get that coveted #24 slot strikes me as an idea one might get from reading too many comic books.
FWIW, 538 puts her in the top 10, and Franken certainly would have been one of the top half-dozen prospects.
Even stipulating that my #24 was exaggerated, do you think that jostling for the D nomination was the main reason Gillibrand unsenatored Franken?
Thanks. Just wanting to make sure it didn’t become another “birther” issue down the road.
Gillibrand has good political instincts, if she was a man this would be lauded. With Franken, she saw that the culture had changed and that it was time to step up on the issue. She’s done the same in the past with the NRA and Clinton. Why she does the right thing is less interesting to me than that she does the right thing. As I’ve said before, the only criteria for the Democratic candidate is that they can beat Trump. Gillibrand is good on camera, can appeal to moderates and is white which might pull off some of Trump’s base who are disenchanted, but won’t vote for a person of color. There are a lot of candidates and the primaries haven’t even started, we’ll see if she can handle the scrutiny of a national primary race. She’s clearly smart and I’m sure she’s studied H. Clinton’s mistakes as she tried to thread the needle and be too many things to too many people.
Have you been paying attention to the crazy right? Didn’t she have trouble with it in her election?
Anyone who takes that seriously isn’t available to her anyway.
I paid attention in a more…abstract way. More of a general sense than specific races.
I kind of do, but more in the sense of building her rep as a principled, independent feminist than of plotting to eliminate Al Franken specifically.
The Dems have to expand out of the East Coast. They lost 2016 in the Rust Belt, South, Midwest and Rocky Mountains. ALL of the primary candidates were East Coast. The nominee and her VP running mate were East Coast. I think Gildebrand would be an excellent candidate but you need someone west of the Mississippi like Bullock or Hickenlooper to balance out the ticket.
I don’t feel too strongly about her one way or another, but she could make Franken her VP and that would make me feel better about her.
No quibble there. It was the explicit characterization above (“Bravely throwing a potential rival for the nomination under the bus when opportunity presented”) that seemed misplaced.
Because he’s a boob/butt-grabber and not a pussy-grabber?
Yep, that’s exactly right.
During the primary, I say “No” to Kirsten Gillibrand because of her approach to handling the Franken accusations and her comments on Bill Clinton’s scandal. I’m also concerned about her co-sponsoring of s720 which would criminalize the divestment from Israel. She has removed her name as co-sponsor but her reasoning is weak: she doesn’t want to punish individuals but she does want to punish businesses for divestment. I think that attitude is anti-free speech and anti-business and I think the government should not be involved in punishing people for choosing to divest from Israel.
If she does win the primary, at least I live in NY so I don’t have to worry about writing in Al Franken for president.