Premium Sponsor


Featured Sponsor


Our Sponsors


Ad Networks

Advertise Liberally

Buy an ad on all of the top liberal blogs with just one click.

Site Stats

NY-Sen-B: Israel Backs Off Senate Bid at Obama's Request

by: James L.

Fri May 15, 2009 at 5:24 PM EDT


The Obama charm offensive continues to work its magic. From the Politico:

Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) decided not to run for the Senate against Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) after receiving a phone call from President Obama urging him not to run.

Israel was planning on running as late as this morning, but after receiving an afternoon phone call from Obama, he changed his mind.  He had already begun to hire staff in preparation for a Senate campaign, according to Empire State sources.

"I spoke with President Obama today. He asked me that I not run for the U.S. Senate this year. The President asked me to continue my leadership in Congress, working closely with him to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and create new jobs through an intensified focus on renewable energy and green technology," Israel said in a statement.

"This is a tough, heartfelt decision for me. I have received encouragement to pursue this fight from all corners of our great state. But in the interest of providing New York and our country with a united front for progressive change, I have decided to continue my efforts in Congress and not pursue a campaign for the U.S. Senate."

All the rumblings that I was hearing over the past several weeks indicated that Izzy was pretty gung-ho at the prospect of waging a Senate campaign, so this strikes me as something of a surprise. Of course, Gillibrand still has at least a couple of other foes waiting in the wings in Reps. Carolyn McCarthy and Carolyn Maloney, and who knows how receptive they'll be to the President's requests.
James L. :: NY-Sen-B: Israel Backs Off Senate Bid at Obama's Request
Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
NY-Sen-B: Israel Backs Off Senate Bid at Obama's Request | 96 comments
Our own "Campaigner in Chief"
I like it. Will Maloney go for it or will she be getting a similar call?
Not sure
But McCarthy has to back off.  Maloney might be able to put KG's feet to the fire as a progressive (this term, she's veered center, though), but, except on gun conrol, McCarthy would be running either to Gillibrand's right or as a complete clone.
[ Parent ]
Not even on gun control anymore
Gillibrand has been moving hard left on gun control.  She was among the 29 Democratic senators who voted against the Coburn amendment to allow carry of licensed handguns in national parks.  27 D and 40 R senators voted for the amendment.
[ Parent ]
Yup
KG knows that her only race is in the primary. I don't think she's yet made a single vote that I would object to.
[ Parent ]
NRA Rating
She's likely to go from an "A" to an "F" rating from the NRA in one year.  No doubt it's as you say--the primary is the only race that matters.
[ Parent ]
Great news
My guess is she doesn't get a real challenger.
Sweet . . .
Good call, Mr. President, good call.
Obama muscling someone out of a primary?
NEVER! Bwahahahaha.
Anyone else skeptical?
Do politicians really decide to forego a race they were eager for simply because the president asked them nicely?  I'm thinking there was some carrot and/or stick here that didn't make it into the story.
Well, there is a stick.
Namely that the absurdly popular (among NY Dems) sitting President publicly endorses your opponent.  Carrots are kind of meaningless at that point.
[ Parent ]
Clearly Obama threatened to go to New York
and campaign for KG during the primary.
[ Parent ]
I mean, he wouldn't even have to say that.
That becomes implicit once you have the president directly asking you not to run for Senate.  Just the fact that he went so far as to ask you directly makes it clear that he feels strongly enough that he'd campaign against you, and put out the word to donors about you.  Both men would know this to be true without ever having to say it in words.

I'm not surprised Israel is bowing to the president on this one, but I am surprised the president is inserting himself so deeply into a contest he has very little direct involvement with.  This is not IL-Sen, or PA-Sen, or even DE-Sen, where he might plausibly want to defend the prerogatives of Joe Biden's son.  He had almost no role whatsoever in the choice of a replacement for Hillary Clinton, and what role he did have was in giving his own green light to his early and high-profile endorser Caroline Kennedy, who was later red-lighted by Hillary and Bill Clinton, if the gossip is correct.  In fact, I'd take this to be a favor done for Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer, both of whom want to see Gillibrand succeed with very little disturbance.  I'd guess that Obama decided that making them very happy was worth making Steve Israel very bummed out.

This is the ultimate proof, if any were needed, that Kirsten Gillibrand is wired.

I wouldn't count on Carolyn Maloney to go up against that.  She's 61, which is old enough to know she can't wait but young enough to make it still worthwhile, but still.  

That would be one hell of a fight.  :-)

[ Parent ]
I wonder if Obama
Will make such a phone call to Rep. Sestak.  
[ Parent ]
Mixed feelings on this.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for Gillibrand and I'm glad to see Obama will take an active role in campaigning for our candidates (I was a little worried he might try to stay out of the fray for awhile there), but I think this has some downsides.

For one, I think Gillibrand could use a primary to sharpen her political skills and strengthen herself for the general election, not to mention introduce herself to her constituents who still don't know her.  For another, I think the candidate should ultimately be decided by the voters in the primary, not the machine, even if the guy running the machine is someone I really, really like.

Also, what implications does this have on Pennsylvania?  Will Sestak bow out so easily if the President asks him to?  Or Colorado, assuming someone does primary Bennet?

Check out Blue Arkansas:
http://bluearkansas.blogspot.com/

The President naturally wants allies
Why waste money in New York when there is a sitting senator already supporting your agenda. There is a much better argument for a primary in the states you mentioned.
[ Parent ]
I understand that.
But at the same time, I can't shake the feeling that Gillibrand needs a primary campaign to strengthen her hand in a statewide race, much less the feeling that people are cheated when they don't get a voice in elections.

I agree with you that there are better arguments for primaries elsewhere, but I see no indication that President Obama agrees with you.  This could end up being a prelude to more incumbent protection down the road.

Check out Blue Arkansas:
http://bluearkansas.blogspot.com/

[ Parent ]
I can understand the no primary rationale
If you take the view (rightly or wrongly) that Specter, Gillibrand and Bennet are the strongest candidates in their respective states then clearing the field to concentrate on picking up seats in MO, NH, OH, KY, NC and an outside shot in LA makes sense.  
[ Parent ]
Right, I'm not saying that I don't see that.
I'm not even saying you're wrong.  My thing is I just don't feel comfortable with party bosses making the decision on that sort of thing.  It's especially disappointing when you recall that Obama was an anti-machine candidate himself when he ran for Senate.

Check out Blue Arkansas:
http://bluearkansas.blogspot.com/
[ Parent ]
I also see it and can't disagree

[ Parent ]
I third your concern.

[ Parent ]
I agree, as well
Even if Obama was very friendly in that phone conversation, with Israel, its still the kind of phone call you described. Obama isnt a Nixon or LBJ, who I assume would be fuming in such a phone convo.
[ Parent ]
I can understand it, too
As Senate elections, especially in a state like NY, cost alot of money. Money that could be used elsewhere. If elections were free then by all means parties and voters shouldnt mind the primaries. And its not like shes a Ben Nelson or Arlen Specter.  
[ Parent ]
Well, some primaries just arent logical
Like a liberal trying to primary Sen. Pryor in AR or a conservative trying to primary Sen. Snowe or Collins in ME.
[ Parent ]
Sestak's probably a case of his own
Sestak has now established he'd have the support of the activist base if he ran, but he knows the establishment will attack him. It's now a question of how much they will, but also of how the base would react to that. Obama may not always listen to his base, but he rarely tries to annoy it for a sustained period of time. I expect him to give out very mixed messages on this one.

Bennet might be another matter, but then again I can't see what Obama would gain by saving him, whereas Gillibrand is a reliable vote.

[ Parent ]
I hope you're right.


Check out Blue Arkansas:
http://bluearkansas.blogspot.com/
[ Parent ]
Gillibrand
Gillibrand is 1. sharp as a tack and 2. simply has tons of charisma & charm. There's another politician with those two traits; he lives in the White House now.
Glad that Obama gave her a hand here, once she gets past this first Senate election, it'll be hers as long as she chooses.
(I'd bet Schumer may have whispered in his ear)

I doubt Steve Israel was specifically promised a thing. But it sure doesn't hurt to have President Obama owe you one.

[ Parent ]
Glad someone else sees that.
I definately think Gillibrand has what it takes to be President someday.

Check out Blue Arkansas:
http://bluearkansas.blogspot.com/
[ Parent ]
Mmmmhhhmmm
I'd love to see a run for President out of her.  Same with Klobuchar or McCaskill.  We have a lot of excellent women Senators who should definitely run in the next decade or two
[ Parent ]
If she did get the nomination for Pres.
I have a big feeling shed try to move back to the center again. Thatd make alot of people raise their eyebrows.  
[ Parent ]
That depends
say in 2016 or 2020 or 2024 (when she'll only be 58), her views now may be mainstream by then.

Say she runs in 2024, is there anyone who doesn't think gay marriage won't be popular by then?  

Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens

[ Parent ]
True
Just in 2004 virtually no major Dem supported universal healthcare, now almost all of them do. Peoples opinions on the issues definitely change over the years. On some things people become more liberal, some more conservative. I do think by 2020, especially 2024, we will be a much more liberal country. On social issues perhaps less so, due to latinos. But they vote overwhelmingly Dem and most of their votes are for socially liberal Dems...so their stances on it probably wont make much of a difference on policy.
[ Parent ]
I don't think Latinos are as socially conservative as we think.
IIRC, exit polls said that they were split on Prop 8.
[ Parent ]
For US Senate
I remember they all had to give an answer to supporting gay marriage or not.  They all did but Ciresi was wishy-washy and like, that was noted pretty much.

Same for Gov, they will all be forced to give an answer on the issue.

Any other states noticing that in their primary questioning.

[ Parent ]
"Obama may not always listen to his base, but he rarely tries to annoy it for a sustained period of time."
So we are going to see those torture pictures at some point/. Were currently in Progressive War I over this issue. People at TPM (mostly the Obama haters) have been vocal over tgis although alot support his decsion for various reasons prompting the Obama haters to call the Obama supporters "Cultist" "Drinking the Obama Kool-Aid" and "In Obama we Trust". God I hate fucking purist. I'm guessing OpenLeft spitting mad over this, of course those whack jobs will get pissed at anything he does if he dosen't live up to their standards and pass the liberal litmus test (what political group does that remind you of? I'll give you a hint, their nickname is GOP).

Sorry to get off track here.

[ Parent ]
you'd better read this from yesterday
What the Swing State Project Is All About

I wish the mods here would back up their words with deeds.

[ Parent ]
I don't need to read it...
I know what SSP is all about, covering elections for the Democrats. Updating up with poll numbers,candidate news, fundraising news, posts about how to gerrymander a certain state etc. I just got off track on that, plus it's on my mind right now since no one will stop talking about it. Not to mention the ACLU and other civil liberty groups are chasting Obama as Bush II on the issue. I can't stand it anymore. Yes he shouldn't of backtracked, but I don't want the troops harmed or give anti-american sentiment overseas espically with Obama's landmark middle east speech coming up next month in Egypt which I think is a reason for the delay).

I know it's all politics here and nothing else, but I had to say it because I need to get it out of my system.

[ Parent ]
Well said

[ Parent ]
Thanks
However, I don't think you realize how many people I've had to ban here over the past 12 months -- believe me, it's been a lot.

Here's a good rule of thumb: if you find yourself apologizing at the end of a long comment for "getting off track", maybe you shouldn't hit the post button.

[ Parent ]
I don't regret posting this ont bit
I have a question that was non-election I had to ask SSP because it was a issue that was bothering me and because SSP contains some of the brightest people i've met on the progressive blogs I go, there was a good chance I woyuld get back specific answers (which I did).

I understand the rules of the blog James and you won't have to worry about pushing the ban button on me in the near future, but it was a question about Obama that was worrying me alot I had to ask the posters of SSP. I got good answers and I will try not to off track anymore threads in the near future.

BTW, since were on the topic, what are your thoughts on the photos issue?

[ Parent ]
You should. (eom)

[ Parent ]
Im unsure what they will ultimately do in 2012
Will they stay home, support a third party candidate or 'come home' for Obama. But they are just a small percentage of the Democratic base and I would assume many arent even registered Dems (rather ultra liberal Independents or Greens or whatever).
[ Parent ]
Are you trying to say that
There is only a small precentage of the base that are angry about the President not turning over the photos? Because i'm not sure. I just go to TPM for my liberal news (outside of 538 and politics1) and the one that are angry are the ones that never liked the guy from the start. There are alot that support Obamas decsion and that want the photos released but either not now where it will be splashed over the MSM as torture porn, in a courtroom during an investigation or after Obama's speech in Egypt. I just hate that because of this people get pissed, the news groups like the AP quote liberal groups like the ACLU that are angry at Obama saying he's Bush II because of this (making the point that all liberals are angry at the man). It just makes me want to pull my hair out or throw my fist threw a wall.  
[ Parent ]
No
I meant just generally anti-Obama folks on the 'far left'.  
[ Parent ]
Well there must be
Because most approval ratings i've seen when broken down among the parties, Obama usually gets a disapproval rating less than 10 percent. But you didn't answer my question, how will him and his decsion about the photos affect his relationship with the base (i.e us)?
[ Parent ]
Time will tell
Alot depends on other issues, particularly health care reform. Its still pretty early in the game.  
[ Parent ]
Yes it is pretty early
Hasn't even been a year yet. What i'm saying is will Obama lose support over the photos? That's the question i'm asking. And yes alot of issue will matter for the furure such as healthcare reform and climate change legislation not to mention who he picks for the Supreme Court.

The same question goes to anyone else who wants to answer. I say this because I know people here will give me a sane answer instead of an answer full of hate and spite like what the Anti-Obama posters do at TPM.

[ Parent ]
I do think he will lose some support
On the photos issue. Especially on blogs like DailyKos. But maybe he will get alot of that support back due to other issues. We shall see. But i think the number of Dems who will stop supporting him, over this issue, isnt much.
[ Parent ]
He will lose some support...
but not many votes.  I think in the end most of the votes will come home but there is a potential fear that he will alienate some of the most committed partisans (the ones that work phone banks and knock on doors and give money).  He will probably still get their votes but some people who donated and volunteered in 2008 will sit out the next one and just vote.

This issue alone won't make a difference but you can hurt yourself over the long run if you really annoy the most partisan part of the base because you lose $$ and volunteers which matter a lot to campaigns.

[ Parent ]
Maybe that hurt McCain
In states like OH, IN, and NC. Even though he had tacked right during the campaign.
[ Parent ]
JUST for the photos? No
No, the photo decision, while important and disappointing, isn't going to drive voters in 2012. Something in 2011-2012 will, probably.

Now, the decision could be part of something larger- continually poking the base, a poorly-ran investigation into torture, even a cover-up- and those things could certainly lose Obama votes on the left (for that matter, a bad investigation could kill votes in the center, too). I don't know if any of those things are going to happen- but they're possible.

But it's also possible that Obama does something else that brings them back, too. He's managed to do that a lot so far, really.

[ Parent ]
Yeah he has
I remember durig the campaign every Dem was pissing and moaning about him. Not fighting back againist McCain, Rev Wright situtation etc. Just when you think he's gone, he pulls you right back. He plans long term and not short term.

Let me as you this, supposed when this goes to court and Obama loses like he naturally will. Will he get his support back from his base? I'm worried a bit on this issue and I don't want to see his approval rating drop 20 points and making a President Romney out of this just because of some damn pictures. You know what i'm saying.

Talk me down.

[ Parent ]
If he loses in court
then it's not his fault whatever happens as a result of the photo release. He was against it. The blame gets shifted to the courts.

The only ones who would be hurt by it are whoever were pushing the President to release them...which is why, I suspect, you haven't heard people like Feingold come out and say he shouldn't fight their release, but they know how damaging they can be and don't want the left to be blamed for it.



Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens

[ Parent ]
You make a very good point
about this. I was wondering why I didn't see Feingold, Sanders or and of the other vocal liberals in the Senate say something or relaseing a press release condemning the President decsion about the photos. You all Feingold dosen't mince words when it comes to things he dosen't like. You reason could by why he hasn't said anything. Either way I think Obama will be fine because eventually when this goes to court, the court will side with the ACLU and the photos will be released and everyone will be happy. I don't know if anyone else feels this way, but that's how I feel. But when the come out, I will do everything I can not to see them. After seeing the photos of Abu Ghriaib and thr beheading of Nick Berg, I don't know how much of this my stomach. Plus Obama dosen't want to incite anymore violence in the middle east by releaseing their horrible photos and put the troops in MORE danger. Espically when he's giving that groundbreaking speech about the muslim world and how were making peace with them in Egypt in early June.

Personally I think he's going to be fine. If anything his base will be watching him on is healthcare reform, that will be the make you/break you for his future. Not some goddamn pictures of things we already know about and seen.

[ Parent ]
The truth is
his base isn't the same people who are making the big stink over these photos. They were never endeared with him to begin with (see FISA).

His base are African-Americans and young voters, and for the most part they don't rank these things very high in priority, or even agree with liberals at all on this.

Case in point (this will make sense for anyone on Facebook); a friend of mine who I worked with on the campaign trail had a facebook status message up yesterday that read "Pres. Obama, you want to do the right thing? Shoot the bastards at Gitmo" and 32 friends liked it.  

Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens

[ Parent ]
Alot of it
May be due to the younger generation most likely having a friend or relative whos serving or served in Iraq/Afghanistan. And may just look at things differently. Worried, for example, that those photos being public would put the troops in more danger. And even on Gitmo they may look at things differently. As most of them were picked up in places their friends/relatives are fighting/fought in.
[ Parent ]
This is true
and this is also the reason they want the wars to end soon...but the mistake many on the left make is that they believe all liberals are exclusive and they believe everything a liberal should believe.

Kos said a few months ago that the left has lost the battle on gun control. I think they lost the battle on torture too.  

Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens

[ Parent ]
What I'm reading is just weird
There seem to be widespread rumors that the reason the Obama Admin. refused to release the latest set of photos is because there is some serious sexual misconduct towards prisoners in Iraq.  Those could be extremely damageing photos if the rumors are true.  Unfortunately they will probably become public eventually.  That kind of stuff is hard to keep confidential.
[ Parent ]
The most disturbing rumor
is that children were sodomized in front of their mothers at Abu Ghraib.  http://www.salon.com/politics/...

If that turns out to be true then I'd be for stringing up the people that ordered it like pinatas.

Check out Blue Arkansas:
http://bluearkansas.blogspot.com/

[ Parent ]
Yeah
also prisoners smeared with feces and some mocking of Islam, which are probably the most dangerous photos.

I'd like to hope that if and when they are released, it sends the public in an uproar to do something about it, but I think it's likely the one people who will pay a price are the soldiers in the photos and not any higher ups.

The media will play it as "a few bad apples" and be done with it.  

Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens

[ Parent ]
His plan though
is to have the courts force him to release it or let them leak on their own so he doesn't get the blame for any backlash there is.

If and when the backlash happens, he can say "Well, I didn't want to release them. I knew this was going to happen"



Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens

[ Parent ]
That's my thinking
But if these rumors provide true there will be hell to pay in the Muslim world.  I can see a massive flare up in violance in Iraq and Afghanistan if the things runores did occur.  Especially so if there is blatant disrespect to Islam in the photos.
[ Parent ]
Yeah but there's nothing we can do about that
If they didn't want that to happen. they shouldn't have taken pictures...but this gets President Obama out of the line of fine.

And in the end the only people who will have egg on their face are the leftists who thought they should be released, to hell with what happens in the Muslim world.



Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens

[ Parent ]
First question, how the hell do you know that's what his thinking is?
Second question, shouldn't we avoid saying to hell with the Muslim world when we're stuck in it and can't seem to get out.  Last thing, how are we lefties going to be the ones with egg on our faces if no justice is served here?  I think it would be the morally bankrupt among us that just want to push this under a rug...especially if nothing is done about it and someone worse than Bush and Cheney comes along in the future.

Check out Blue Arkansas:
http://bluearkansas.blogspot.com/
[ Parent ]
No it's not
I want this swept under the rug becaue pictures of sexual abuse involving U.S. military personnel will flare up violance in Iraq and Afghanistan and seriously hurt the military's reputation.

Not saying I think that will happen.  It's going to be nearly impossible to keep a lid on these photos.  But I am glad the President is trying his best to.

There is no excuse for these photos.  The military needs to ban cameras in thes prisons to make sure these sorts of incidents are never recorded again.

[ Parent ]
Or they could, you know, just stop having these incidents in the first place.

[ Parent ]
Amen friend!


Check out Blue Arkansas:
http://bluearkansas.blogspot.com/
[ Parent ]
Probably not possible
We're talking about teenagers (18 and 19 year olds) being put in charge of running prisons with large numbers of terrorists being held.  There are always going to be excesses.  Look up the Stanford Experiments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

These things just happen.  Especially when young people are thrown into positions of total authority over the lives of others.  It's been proven that even people with no prior record of sociopathic behavior can turn into animals under those circumstances.

[ Parent ]
Disagree.
I guarantee you that higher ups knew what was going on and refused to put a stop to it, at the very least.
[ Parent ]
These things don't just happen.
My grandfather was a young man guarding Nazi prisoners at Camp Robinson in WW2.  Had he done anything like these "excesses" he'd have been court martialed.

Check out Blue Arkansas:
http://bluearkansas.blogspot.com/
[ Parent ]
You think the people in those regions don't know about this?
They've had to endure it.  They've had family members locked away.  The pictures themselves aren't needed to inflame relations with Muslims, the practices are doing it, and all Obama is doing by coming out so publicly against releasing the pictures is playing into the hands of people like Bin Laden, enabling them to say, "Your hopes were ill founded, Obama is just like Bush and this proves it."  By not confronting this, by not lending his considerable charm and grace to this discussion the way he did on race, Obama is conceding the moral ground which is important if we want to change our relationship with the people of that region.

Surely you meant to say that the prisons should ban torture and not pictures.  Surely you value freedom of the press and not brutal interrogations.

Check out Blue Arkansas:
http://bluearkansas.blogspot.com/

[ Parent ]
They should ban it in extreme cases
Softening up prisoners is often necessary for interrogation.  Some of the stuff that is rumored to have occured should not be tolerated.  But when you have soldiers put in these positions of authority this sort of thing just happens.  There has to be some leeway.
[ Parent ]
You guys -- Chad and the rest...
are getting WAY off track, yet again. Please -- cut it out. For God's sake, the title of this post is "NY-Sen-B: Israel Backs Off Senate Bid at Obama's Request".
[ Parent ]
I apologize for my part in this.

[ Parent ]
Ditto.


Check out Blue Arkansas:
http://bluearkansas.blogspot.com/
[ Parent ]
I don't want to get too deep into this
We all know what we think on this by now, so I'll concentrate wholly on optics.

If Obama loses the case - and legally I can't see what basis he has to win - I don't think the blame is going to be specifically directed at any one group. I think that outside America, the country as a whole will be blamed whilst inside anybody who can be identified in the photos and maybe a few Bushniks will get blamed.

Conservatives would probably keep trying to hit the ACLU over this, but if they're as bad as rumoured, they're going to want to tread very softly, for fear that it blows back on them.

[ Parent ]
Sadly
It'll almost certainly be the low level privates that take all the blame as usual.  Really a shame, but I'll bet that's what happens once again.  It should be the higher ups that should be punished.

Setting aside the usual arguments over torture I think we can all agree that there will be a LOT of blowback should these pictures/video show the kinds of things they are rumored to show.  What is rumored to be in those pics will make the original Abu Ghraib scandel look like nothing.

[ Parent ]
And not just the activisits
But I would assume so many 'labor Democrats' out west. Besides his more pro-labor positions (not talking about how he treats his own staffers, thats another issue altogether which probably wont amount to anything in a campaign) His Catholicism and military background Im sure doesnt hurt.
[ Parent ]
Although, to be fair,
It didnt seem to do Kerry much good in western PA.  
[ Parent ]
Well said.
I do think primaries (or at least the threat of them) will be very beneficial in Pennsylvania and Colorado, although for different reasons.  I'm worried that Bennet might not be the most electable candidate (and he's certainly not all that progressive.)

I hope Obama doesn't repeat this performance too often, though I agree with it in this case.

[ Parent ]
Thanks.


Check out Blue Arkansas:
http://bluearkansas.blogspot.com/
[ Parent ]
Bennet sucks
and I'm being kind when I say that.  Of the four appointments, he was the worst, and that includes Burris.
[ Parent ]
A primary in New York
wastes 40 million that could be used in other states.  That's enough for a general election in several states.

Bennet should be primaried in Colorado.  Specter should be primaried if he doesn't shift left.  But Gillibrand has voted a straight liberal line and doesn't deserve a money wasting primary.

Nor does she need to sharpen her political skills.  She's a talented politician.

[ Parent ]
I don't doubt her skills.
But I still think a campaign would serve to introduce her to her constituents.  The party benefits from this, I see that, and I'm not against the move, but I still think the voters deserve a say.

Check out Blue Arkansas:
http://bluearkansas.blogspot.com/
[ Parent ]
disagree 100%
Hillary Clinton was super well know, and still spent millions in NY during her senate race. Granted, it was a lead up to her presidential race, but KG could easily do the same against a no name republican and introduce herself that way. It would also allow her to simply do biographical adds. And as others have said, 40 million dollars, to introduce someone to their state, when she's going to win it by probably 20% is absolutely retarded.

Dump that 40 million into Louisiana and see what happens down there. Its makes NO logical sense. Not to mention that KG has a track record of constituent services that made her extremely popular in NY-20, and if she does the same as a sitting Senator, she'll be fine for decades to come. And potentially hurting a rising star of your own political party is also retarded. Let Republicans do that. Its what they're good at.

[ Parent ]
Interesting
I notice Obama hasn't called Sestak yet in Pennsylvania.  Then again, I'm not sure Sestak would be inclined to change his mind just because the president called.

Still, this is good news, as Israel is to the right of Gillibrand.

interesting point re Sestak.
But he's a retired Rear Admiral. He may be conditioned to be more likely to comply with a request from commander in chief Obama.

I think Sestak's doing a great job, nudging Specter to the left. Arlen Specter Now 67% Democrat.
I suspect that he'll be in line for bigger and better things in the future.

[ Parent ]
Call me when he hits 80%
That was the Reagan threshold.
[ Parent ]
unfair
The 1980's were a different breed of Republicans... 67% Democrat is freaking amazing. And remember, this is still Pennsylvania. I think that they would, in general, be more comfortable with someone 70% Democrat than 90% Democrat. Lets just see what he does. Let them keep up the talk against him, and lets see if he walks the walk.

Last thing that we as a party need to do is start kicking out moderates. Again, as I've said, that is what Republicans do, and look what a great job they've done.

[ Parent ]
As a fellow ex-Republican
I couldn't agree more.

Check out the 2010 California races and help us take back Red California!
[ Parent ]
2nd
Im an ex-Republican, as well. Though Independent and, admittedly, voted McCain. But Obama has not been a bad President at all and can definitely see myself voting for him in 2012.

And the Republicans need to realize its not just social issues they need to moderate on but economic, too. So the 'Tea Party' Republicans should not be in charge, either. Theyve really got to get with the times on things like health care and college education costs.  

[ Parent ]
Obama probably talked Pelosi
into offering him a chairmanship or something.

Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens
He's only on one committee: Appropriations.
Which makes it more surprising that he would have given that up for a Senate bid.
[ Parent ]
Appropriations Subcommittee
He's on Energy and Water Development Subcommittee and Energy is a big issue for him on Long Island. Maybe Pelosi will ask Pete Visclosky to step aside for Israel.


Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens
[ Parent ]
Why would or should he?
Pete Visclosky is a low-key guy who is most interested in helping his local constituents in NW Indiana -- and with the Region's (dying) steel industry and Lake Michigan being perhaps the two central aspects of his district, why would or should he give up this position?  
[ Parent ]
Who knows?
Maybe he's retiring in 2010, he's been in office for 25 years.  

Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens
[ Parent ]
Possible, but I doubt it
That said, I have no great affection for him -- he's a pretty uninspiring, pretty conservative Democrat -- but he's a good advocate for his constituents.
[ Parent ]
NY-Sen-B: Israel Backs Off Senate Bid at Obama's Request | 96 comments

Copyright 2003-2009 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

Talk to your supporters, not tech support. Campaign Engine is the powerful, affordable Progressive Campaign Software.

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

About the Site

Publisher: DavidNYC

Senior Editor: James L.

Contributing Editor: Crisitunity

SSP's Twitter Feed

Search the SSP archives:

Sign up to receive a daily e-mail whenever the SSP is updated:

Subscribe to SSP's RSS feed: Subscribe via FeedBurner

SSP Resources

Presidential Vote by CD

Partisan Voting Index

House Open Seat Watch

SSP Document Collection

Race Tracker Wiki

2010 Calendar

SSP Race Ratings

Senate Race Ratings

Gubernatorial Race Ratings

House Vulnerability Index

Blogroll

Daily Kos
DemConWatch
DLCC Blog
Five Thirty Eight
From The Roots (DSCC)
Hotline On Call
Kicking Ass (DNC)
Political Wire
Pollster.com
Project 2010 (DGA)
The Next Hurrah
Senate Guru
The Stakeholder (DCCC)
The Thicket (NCSL)
Powered by: SoapBlox