In The Blogs

The Good and Bad About New York's New Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand

| Fri Jan. 23, 2009 6:39 AM PST

Now that Caroline Kennedy is no longer part of the deliberations, New York Gov. David Paterson seems ready to name one-term upstate congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand to New York's vacant senate seat. Born in 1966, Gillibrand becomes the youngest United States senator. Eve Fairbanks over at TNR runs down the merits of the pick. Here are the highlights.

The bad:

[Gillibrand] was the only New York Democrat to support the May 2007 war-funding bill; the others voted against it because it did not contain a troop-withdrawal timetable. She also voted for H.R. 6304, the FISA Amendments Act, which extended immunity to telecoms that spied on U.S. citizens at the behest of the Bush administration.

During this year's campaign, she described her voting record as "one of the most conservative in the state" of New York.

The good:

Advertisement

She's one of a few representatives to disclose her daily schedule online, so reporters and constituents can see who's got access to her. She also posts her earmark requests.

She has a child under one year old: a son, Henry, delivered this past May -- just hours after Gillibrand sat through a marathon 13-hour Armed Services Committee hearing. Take that, Sarah Palin!

Gillibrand comes from a conservative district, which may explain her centrist voting record. Hopefully she'll move left now that she represents the entire state. The most positive thing about the Gillibrand pick, though, is this: it resembles something like a meritocracy. She has a record as a hard-working public servant with committed stances on issues. She worked her way into a position of influence through determination and skill. (In 2008, she won 61% of the vote against a Republican who spent $5.5 million. From what I can tell reading online, she did it through pure smarts and hustle.)

Yes, there are other members of the New York delegation with more time on Capitol Hill. But the primary alternative was none of those people. It was someone with no record and no qualifications other than a family name. Gillibrand got this post because of work, not privilege, and that alone makes me happy.

Update: See Jim Ridgeway's take on Gillibrand for a more critical view.

Comments

Submitted by Joel Roache (not verified) on Fri Jan. 23, 2009 10:15 AM PST.

My understanding is that she is a Blue Dog democrat very close to Hillary Clinton (meritocracy). She doesn't sound much like an agent of change. But she will get along fine with an economic team made up of people who caused the current crisis, a defense team composed of supporters of the war, a policy in Afghanistan that adopts the usual American strategy: kill more people, and a secretary of education who championed the privatization and/or militarization of the Chicago Public Schools. And of course it's doubtful that she will work for accountability for the most criminal administration in our history. Don't expect much progress progressives.

Submitted by Mark T (not verified) on Fri Jan. 23, 2009 10:51 AM PST.

I contributed to both her election and her reelection campaigns as part of my contribution to the replacement of the Republican majorities in Congress. Her district - which I've driven around - is 100% small town America and very Republican at its core and one of the toughest for a Democrat to win in the US. No progressive could have won 40% of the vote. At one fundraiser, she, Barney Frank and Carolyn Maloney spoke and Kristin was by far the most impressive of the lot although she had only been on the job a couple months. I think you sum it up perfectly when you say she got the job on merit not glitz. The Q rating or whatever it is may be missing (and that is probably a good thing imo) but she's a very honorable and worthy holder of the office - frankly, much as is Gov Patterson himself.