The ‘Glass Ceiling’ Argument and the NY Senate Seat
The appointment of Kirsten Gillibrand — and reaction to it — exposes Democratic Party hypocrisy.
Then, too, there are the supporters of the candidacy of Caroline Kennedy (otherwise known as Mrs. Schlossberg), who were angry at the news that Princess Caroline would not be getting the senatorial nod from Governor Patterson. They immediately started screaming about a “glass ceiling.” (All this leaves aside the issue of there possibly being some back-channel shenanigans going on with Governor Patterson, in support of Barack Obama, as Richard Fernandez points out.)
The obvious point proven by the appointment of Kirsten Gillibrand is that there isn’t a glass ceiling at all. Let’s consider, please, the person that she’s replacing. Did the glass ceiling not apply to Hillary? Wasn’t that the cry when Hillary Clinton was elected to that seat — that the glass ceiling was finally broken? Of course, cries of “the glass ceiling” are exposed as false on the face of it; there have been other senators before Hillary Clinton who were female.
More than one observer made the point that the op-ed pieces coming out with the charge of “glass ceiling” were printed just about the time that Governor Patterson named Gillibrand. This was colossally bad timing. The usual complaints issued in those op-eds were simply not based in fact, as evidenced by the eventual appointment of Gillibrand.
The appointment (and the reaction to it) does prove that the charges of “glass ceilings” and sexual discrimination get dragged out every time a favorite daughter is turned down for reasons regarding qualifications. Notice, however, that that charge never gets dragged out when a fairly conservative female candidate is turned down, for one reason or another. As an example, we see no charges of “glass ceiling” being tossed about by the people objecting to Gillibrand’s nomination.
This situation also exposes, by extension and pattern matching, that the false charges of discrimination are not unique to the narrow minded world view of the gender feminist, but extend to all the various leftist sub-groups. It is at the very heart of the race hustler’s method of operation, for example. Or the advocate of more rights for homosexuals.
In each of these cases, anytime a question regarding “qualifications” is brought up, the charge of “discrimination” will invariably be the echo from the left. And, often as not, the leftist, the believer in big government, will call for some kind of governmental action which will, in the Orwellian sense, make some candidates more equal than others.
Does anyone remember the veiled threat being pushed by pundits such as Jim Carville that we would have race riots on our hands if Obama didn’t win?
Clearly, the standard knee-jerk Democratic arguments are being exposed as threadbare. What’s neat is that it’s being done by Democrats themselves.
<- Prev Page 2 of 2
Eric Florack has spent 25 years discussing politics in online forums. He’s also a veteran of some 20 years of Broadcast (radio) experience and blogs at Bits Blog.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
24 Comments
1. cedarford:That Gillibrand was named to the position is something of a shock, particularly given her positions on the issues of the day. She’s pro-life, she has two children. She’s in a stable marriage. She comes with the NRA’s stamp of approval. She is against homosexual marriage. She fought former NY Governor Eliot (Client Number 9) Spitzer on his plan to give illegal aliens driver’s licenses. Not exactly what we’ve come to expect from the Democrats of late.
Not a shock at all.
1. The entire rest of NY’s major high-power office holders are NYC. Predominantly Jewish, and from Manhattan. Speaker Sheldon Silver, Jewish, Manhattan. Eliot Spitzer and David Paterson, one Jewish, one black, both from Manhattan. Chuckie Schumer, Jewish from the NYC borough of Brooklyn. Worked in Manhattan before going to Congress. Mayor Bloomberg – Jewish, & a Manhattan guy. Attorney General Andrew Cuomo – from Queens. Lived with a Kennedy in Manhattan for a while. Lost the Kennedy, stayed in Manhattan.
Given that there are 19 million people in New York, with 1.7 million Jews and 1.6 million living in Manhattan…..Gillibrand represents a good effort to broaden the notion that if New Yorkers vote Democratic, Upstate will not be given short shrift with all power and influence going to NYC, and further concentrated in mostly Jews and Manhattanites.
2. Gillibrand proved she could win in a Republican District, then get re-elected AND go out and do spectacular fundraising for other Democratic candidates. She has strong appeal to independents and moderats and may help deliver a good portion of that voting block to other Dem candidates – especially Paterson.
3. She and her other family members have long exposure to the issues and problems of New Yorkers outside NYC. As such, she enters the Senate far more grounded in statewide issues and needs than the raft of Manhattanite candidates mentioned for the Senate pick, lead by the hapless Caroline, liberal Jewish Congresswoman Lowey, and NYC suburb scold Carolyn McCarthy. “Adirondacks? Aren’t those some mountains in Quebec?” “I am very familiar with Upstate. My family used to vacation in the Catskills…”
4. She is not a right-to-lifer. She supports most early abortion availability, making contraception available, and supoorts late term abortion only for life and physical health of the mother, or severe fetal defect. She is not a gun loving fanatic – vs, Carolyn McCarthy’s gun-banning fanaticism – but believes gun ownership (with reasonable regulation) is a clear individual Constitutional Right.
5. Her background is impressive in terms of biography (good-looking mom of two young kids, husband a venture capitalist, ). And impressive in terms of credentials. Dartmouth (Asian Studies) UCLA Law. Clerked US 2nd Court of Appeals. Senate intern with Republican Alphonse D’Amato. Special Counsel at HUD in the Clinton Administration. pro bono work Partner at at Boies, Schiller & Flexner (yes, that Boies).
Gillibrand is part of a new generation of Democrats that appeal to independents and moderate Republicans because they have moved past the 60s battles and ideology that screwed the boomers up and hurt the Democrats from 1968 – 2006, with only Watergate and Bill Clinton being the bright spots in between…
Now we have the Republicans as the ones stuck in the “good old days” of the 80s and stuck in the ideologies of the Religious Right and the Corporatist Elites..
Jan 27, 2009 - 4:34 am 2. Bob:Great Article!
Pro-Lifer?
Pro-Family?
Pro-Gun Ownership?
Refused Driver Licenses to Illegal immigrants?
A Conservative Democrat From New York?
SARAH PALIN OF THE NORTHEAST!
MY KIND OF WOMAN!
Congratulations to Governor David Paterson
-
Jan 27, 2009 - 4:55 am 3. Eric Florack:Bob Patterson- with 2 Ts.
Thanks, Bob, but don’t mistake the thrust of the artile as being in support of Gillibrand. There’s certainly must to dislike about the woman as Cedarford notes…though I chafe a bit at his point #1.
The central point is that the age-old, and now hackneyed arguments surrounding the various chosen groups of the Democrat party, are being exposed as at least ill-fitting to the current day situation. thereby, I can’t help but feel there’s another motivation other than the stated one.
I also chafe at Cedarford’s ’stuck in the 80’s’ line, but that, and the ideology, is the subject for another peice, already in the works.
(A taste: It was the ‘me, too’ Republicans, who played along so as to stay in their seats as opposed to standing on principle, who doomed the party to exile from FDR , pretty much to to Reagan)
Jan 27, 2009 - 5:46 am 4. Peter the Bubblehead:“She’s pro-life, she has two children. She’s in a stable marriage. She comes with the NRA’s stamp of approval. She is against homosexual marriage. She fought former NY Governor Eliot (Client Number 9) Spitzer on his plan to give illegal aliens driver’s licenses. Not exactly what we’ve come to expect from the Democrats of late.”
Are you SURE she isn’t a Republican???
Jan 27, 2009 - 5:49 am 5. jerryofva:Is it possible that Obama worked Patterson to appoint a blue dog to Hillary’s seat as an internal Democratic Party check on the party’s lunatic fringe? By adding a vote against hot button issues like gay marriage, gun control and immigration to the Senate he can insure that the Republicans can successfully filibuster controversial legislation like FOCA.
Jan 27, 2009 - 5:51 am 6. joe buzz:Yeah, I read that Mo Dowd wasnt too happy about K. Gilli’s appointment. Which makes me happy. Mo Do was moaning about her stance on Illegal immigration, did she ever comment on Caroline’s stance which was “um you know”.
Jan 27, 2009 - 6:04 am 7. Eric Florack:Point accepted, though I point out in response that the phrase isn’t as absolute as some would make it. Certainly, she leans more in that direction than most others that would be in line for the position. Kennedy, for example. I suggest she would have been openly labeled ‘leaning pro-life’ by the Democrats, were she a Republican. As it is, I note a rather interesting silence on the point prior to her sentorial debut.
Jan 27, 2009 - 7:02 am 8. qwerty:—The appointment (and the reaction to it) does prove that the charges of “glass ceilings” and sexual discrimination get dragged out every time a favorite daughter is turned down for reasons regarding qualifications—
Women ,as a group and a class, are the most insecure creatures. Insecure people are pocket experts in conjuring up obstacles and ceilings.
Even a small blip on their path to success is magnified to elicit sympathy from people, who are susceptible to ideology of victimhood.
I can see this behavior across all cultures, nations and ideologies. There were many female conservative bloggers who put defeat of sarah palin to “bad and evil men” in the republican party.
Jan 27, 2009 - 7:18 am 9. Tom:Wow, if she IS pro-life, then she could be a Dem Sarah Palin but only if she:
1) Takes down the NY State old leftist network,
2) Becomes governor and balances the budget,
3) Turns against her own party on government reform,
4) Gets more valuable executive experience.
Kirsten is like Sarah before she became governor.
Go Girl!
Jan 27, 2009 - 7:33 am 10. cedarford:Hi, Eric Florack – Nice that you read comments.
Besides Gillibrands positions on abortion, she is also not “hardcore conservative” on guns or gay rights.
Almost has a ring of “Romney” to her, and as a moderate myself, that is not a bad thing.
Gay Rights – She supports civil unions and full rights for gays, but not gay marriage.
Gun rights – She is pro-2nd Amendment but not an absolutist. She mentioned on her “get to know NYC people” tour, in respose to the Carolyn McCarthy issue – that she understands NYC has concerns about guns quite different than her home District. And now that she serves a larger constituency, as Senator she pledges she will be flexible and open-minded about city concerns – but will stand with the rights of hunters and sportsmen and the right of law abiding people to self-defense. (Meaning she will not be in any rush to open handgun shops in the South Bronx , and will not be calling gun wielding thugs “2nd Amendment Freedom Lovers!!”)
Jan 27, 2009 - 8:14 am 11. submandave:If we accept cedarford’s analysis of Ms. Gillibrand as representing a new Democrat that has “moved past the 60s battles and ideology” (i.e. pro-abortion on demand, gender feminism, gun control, etc.) then this could provide the Republicans a chance to focus their message. If the “battles” over pro-life (the general principle, not the sticky question of at what point a “life” is to be recognized), second ammendment rights, equal rights (as opposed to political preference based upon demographic), etc. have essentially been settled more to the right than the left, the real substantial question left is to what degree is government intrusion into an individual’s life required to ensure these rights.
I fear, though, that the promise of Republicans as small-government champions may be no more substantial and real than Obama’s mantra of “hope and change.” To this end we fall victim to what I call the Groucho Marx syndrome (”I don’t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member.”). Generally the only people who seek political power are those who wish to have, use and grow it, regardless of party. Rare is the person that would put in the hard work and endure the discomforts required to be elected only to then turn around and willingly give it back to the people. And yet, that is precisely what we eternally hope for in Republican (and especially libertarian) circles.
Jan 27, 2009 - 8:16 am 12. AnninCA:She’s an avowed “Blue Dawg,” which is fine by me, but it sure ruffled some feathers.
Great pick by Paterson, and she’ll deliver, I predict.
Jan 27, 2009 - 9:01 am 13. tommyd:Very good pick , Patterson will be gone next election no doubt, I really like it when Democrats fight amongst themselves.
Jan 27, 2009 - 9:13 am 14. Eric Florack:Very entertaining to hear all the hypocrisy flying around.
Thanks. I do try to remain involved in conversations I start. Your remaining points; same answer as with the first.
And to your other points…. again, that’s the point of the peice; Get someone even a little bit closer to the political center, and the entire left wing narative falls apart faster than yesterday’s kleenex.
Jan 27, 2009 - 9:51 am 15. ked5:#8 Women ,as a group and a class, are the most insecure creatures
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are over generalizing. LIBERAL women, as a group and class, (could be labled) the most insecure. They are the ones who circle the wagons, and have a fit when a conservative woman isn’t beholden to them.
Jan 27, 2009 - 10:23 am 16. Karin:This was a good article and interesting comments, thanks for all of them. I live in WAY up Northern NY, and we are the red-headed stepchild of New York. Guess where all the windfarms that the enviromoonbats love so much end up? Not in Kennedy’s backyard as we know, in mine. Looks like a SciFi movie.
Anyway, I am happy with this pick, as it could have been much, much worse. I was up in arms over the Princess, and I was picturing some other hardline leftocrat from the City. We really need, badly, someone who knows what it’s like outside of Manhattan. We’re so opposite of there, we shouldn’t even be in the same state. Basically, we’re Alaska with a lot of cows. How do our interests possibly converge with Manhattan? Sorry, ranting.
P.S. Ked5, AGREE!
Jan 27, 2009 - 12:09 pm 17. Sonny:There are some on this web page who identify quite closely with the “elitists” and “intellectuals” of the Democrat Party (or at least are trying to make a vain attempt to do so).
The Northeasterns have deluded themselves into thinking they are the only ones wise enough to govern our country. If a person comes from another part of the county who most likely has done a lot more to celebrate American values, the NE’ers try to marginalize them because just plain, simple folks are of no use to them.
To compare Gillibrand with Palin is honoring both of them for being good wives, good mothers and good career examples. Too bad the noses of the NE’ers are so high in the air they are unable to see the virtues of either of them.
Jan 27, 2009 - 3:12 pm 18. Gozer the Carpathian:Hey the more pro-second amendment votes in the Senate the better. Sure she’s not as pro as we would like, but she’s DEFFINETLY more pro than most Dems.
Jan 27, 2009 - 4:31 pm 19. eor:Had the Governor picked Ms. Kennedy I would always have considered him bought and paid for. I respect him for this choice.
Jan 27, 2009 - 4:38 pm 20. narciso:A great choice on Patterson’s call, question, why didn’t he do this a month ago. She’s as centrist
Jan 27, 2009 - 8:04 pm 21. paul_unalaska:a Democrat as you’re likely to find; ironically she probably makes it a little harder for the GOP to claim the seat in two years. But that’s the breaks, the Democrats need people to steer them away from the extremist faction, that has seized power for a time.
Mr. Florack,
I too would like to say, “Thank you’ for adding your comments/ clarification in some areas as well. The comments, clarity of the article is hashed out and civility is the norm. The above comments express my interest, levity to Senator Gillibrand.
Jan 27, 2009 - 10:49 pm 22. Eric Florack:(Shrug) Thanks for saying. Now, if only I could get rid of the typos…. (Chuckle)
Jan 28, 2009 - 5:46 am 23. Marc Malone:cedarford – I’m always skeptical of your info, but if you’re right, than the question I have for you is, “Where does she stand on fiscal policy?” If she’s conservative there, too, then she’s in the wrong Party. She is a moderate Republican. She’s masquerading as a Dem; flying under the radar. Or fooling herself.
Jan 28, 2009 - 2:23 pm 24. Eric Florack:Or, simply doing what she had to to get elected in a conservative district.
Jan 28, 2009 - 6:16 pm