= Editor's Comments = The official position of this publication is that Gillibrand is Good, Actually. This may require some explanation. There is no doubt that Gillibrand is a centrist (which is to say, very problematic and right-wing, just less so than the radical fringe alliance of billionaires and racists that dominate one of the two political parties in America). But over the past few years she has dramatically overhauled her talking points and stated positions in ways that show political acumen and that align herself with the left (which is to say, broadly speaking, sanity). This is of course the kind of thing that will often get politicians, particularly women, labeled as power-seekers, flip-floppers, etc. But those descriptors cut to the core of nearly every person who has ever aspired to high office throughout the course of human history, much less U.S. presidential politics. //Within// that group, one that has chosen to currently wrap themselves in the garb of progressive politics, and has shown themselves to be adroit at when and how to do so, is worth some consideration. Certainly, as a "Bernie Bro" who did not vote for Clinton in the last election, Gillibrand is a much more palatable Democratic establishment candidate. Plus! The //reason// why she's [[ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-endorsements/democratic-primary/#KirstenGillibrand | not receiving endorsements from the establishment ]] is probably not just because she hasn't seemed like a good enough bet; it almost certainly has to do with her swiftness in calling for Al Franken's resignation and, perhaps even moreso, her [[ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/16/us/politics/gillibrand-bill-clinton-sexual-misconduct.html | daring to say that Bill Clinton should have resigned ]], which of course [[ https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/17/kirsten-gillibrand-bill-clinton-democrats-247427 | Clintonworld ]] and Bill Clinton [[ https://www.vox.com/2018/6/1/17417222/bill-clinton-lewinsky-kirsten-gillibrand-me-too-movement | himself ]] had the temerity to publicly push back against (a hole into which they [[ https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/411353-hillary-clinton-on-if-bill-shouldve-resigned-over-lewinsky-scandal | refuse to stop digging ]]). And knowing what the Clintons did to people who had endorsed Barack Obama in the 2008 cycle, it stands to reason that they're no small part of freezing Gillibrand out so far. Fight spite with spite, I guess I'm saying. Not that Gillibrand should win, but, say, maybe Clintonworld rallies behind another candidate and Gillibrand destroys them? That'd be wonderfully appropriate. I mean, if I had to bet, I'd wager they'll be backing Kamala Harris, but imagine: they try to make it up to [[2020_u.s._presidential_election/candidates/Joe Biden]] and Gillibrand just obliterates him, her primary issues being basically his Kryptonite. That would be //fan-fucking-tastic//.

= Editor's Comments = The official position of this publication is that Gillibrand is Good, Actually. This may require some explanation. There is no doubt that Gillibrand is a centrist (which is to say, very problematic and right-wing, just less so than the radical fringe alliance of billionaires and racists that dominate one of the two political parties in America). But over the past few years she has dramatically overhauled her talking points and stated positions in ways that show political acumen and that align herself with the left (which is to say, broadly speaking, sanity). This is of course the kind of thing that will often get politicians, particularly women, labeled as power-seekers, flip-floppers, etc. But those descriptors cut to the core of nearly every person who has ever aspired to high office throughout the course of human history, much less U.S. presidential politics. //Within// that group, one that has chosen to currently wrap themselves in the garb of progressive politics, and has shown themselves to be adroit at when and how to do so, is worth some consideration. Certainly, as a "Bernie Bro" who did not vote for Clinton in the last election, Gillibrand is a much more palatable Democratic establishment candidate than most. (I mean, she [[ https://www.thecut.com/2018/03/kirsten-gillibrand-endorsed-andrew-cuomo-over-cynthia-nixon.html | sucks ]], but the bar is pretty low.) Plus! The //reason// why she's [[ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-endorsements/democratic-primary/#KirstenGillibrand | not receiving endorsements from the establishment ]] is probably not just because she hasn't seemed like a good enough bet; it almost certainly has to do with her swiftness in calling for Al Franken's resignation and, perhaps even moreso, her [[ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/16/us/politics/gillibrand-bill-clinton-sexual-misconduct.html | daring to say that Bill Clinton should have resigned ]], which of course [[ https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/17/kirsten-gillibrand-bill-clinton-democrats-247427 | Clintonworld ]] and Bill Clinton [[ https://www.vox.com/2018/6/1/17417222/bill-clinton-lewinsky-kirsten-gillibrand-me-too-movement | himself ]] had the temerity to publicly push back against (a hole into which they [[ https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/411353-hillary-clinton-on-if-bill-shouldve-resigned-over-lewinsky-scandal | refuse to stop digging ]]). And knowing what the Clintons did to people who had endorsed Barack Obama in the 2008 cycle, it stands to reason that they're no small part of freezing Gillibrand out so far. Fight spite with spite, I guess I'm saying. Not that Gillibrand should win, but, say, maybe Clintonworld rallies behind another candidate and Gillibrand destroys them? That'd be wonderfully appropriate. I mean, if I had to bet, I'd wager they'll be backing Kamala Harris, but imagine: they try to make it up to [[2020_u.s._presidential_election/candidates/Joe Biden]] and Gillibrand just obliterates him, her primary issues being basically his Kryptonite. That would be //fan-fucking-tastic//. ---- Of course, that didn't happen. [[ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-running-to-win-women-didnt-work-for-gillibrand/ | She's gone ]]. > The irony of Gillibrand's campaign is that taking a bold and outspoken stance on an important feminist issue* lost her a lot of the "It's time for a woman in the White House" longtime Dems. > > (* - that issue being "Democrats should be held accountable for sexual misconduct too") > - https://twitter.com/RuckCohlchez/status/1166930678539096064

= Editor's Comments = The official position of this publication is that Gillibrand is Good, Actually. This may require some explanation. There is no doubt that Gillibrand is a centrist (which is to say, very problematic and right-wing, just less so than the radical fringe alliance of billionaires and racists that dominate one of the two political parties in America). But over the past few years she has dramatically overhauled her talking points and stated positions in ways that show political acumen and that align herself with the left (which is to say, broadly speaking, sanity). This is of course the kind of thing that will often get politicians, particularly women, labeled as power-seekers, flip-floppers, etc. But those descriptors cut to the core of nearly every person who has ever aspired to high office throughout the course of human history, much less U.S. presidential politics. //Within// that group, one that has chosen to currently wrap themselves in the garb of progressive politics, and has shown themselves to be adroit at when and how to do so, is worth some consideration. Certainly, as a "Bernie Bro" who did not vote for Clinton in the last election, Gillibrand is a much more palatable Democratic establishment candidate. than most. (I mean, she [[ https://www.thecut.com/2018/03/kirsten-gillibrand-endorsed-andrew-cuomo-over-cynthia-nixon.html | sucks ]], but the bar is pretty low.) Plus! The //reason// why she's [[ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-endorsements/democratic-primary/#KirstenGillibrand | not receiving endorsements from the establishment ]] is probably not just because she hasn't seemed like a good enough bet; it almost certainly has to do with her swiftness in calling for Al Franken's resignation and, perhaps even moreso, her [[ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/16/us/politics/gillibrand-bill-clinton-sexual-misconduct.html | daring to say that Bill Clinton should have resigned ]], which of course [[ https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/17/kirsten-gillibrand-bill-clinton-democrats-247427 | Clintonworld ]] and Bill Clinton [[ https://www.vox.com/2018/6/1/17417222/bill-clinton-lewinsky-kirsten-gillibrand-me-too-movement | himself ]] had the temerity to publicly push back against (a hole into which they [[ https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/411353-hillary-clinton-on-if-bill-shouldve-resigned-over-lewinsky-scandal | refuse to stop digging ]]). And knowing what the Clintons did to people who had endorsed Barack Obama in the 2008 cycle, it stands to reason that they're no small part of freezing Gillibrand out so far. Fight spite with spite, I guess I'm saying. Not that Gillibrand should win, but, say, maybe Clintonworld rallies behind another candidate and Gillibrand destroys them? That'd be wonderfully appropriate. I mean, if I had to bet, I'd wager they'll be backing Kamala Harris, but imagine: they try to make it up to [[2020_u.s._presidential_election/candidates/Joe Biden]] and Gillibrand just obliterates him, her primary issues being basically his Kryptonite. That would be //fan-fucking-tastic//. ---- Of course, that didn't happen. [[ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-running-to-win-women-didnt-work-for-gillibrand/ | She's gone ]]. > The irony of Gillibrand's campaign is that taking a bold and outspoken stance on an important feminist issue* lost her a lot of the "It's time for a woman in the White House" longtime Dems. > > (* - that issue being "Democrats should be held accountable for sexual misconduct too") > - https://twitter.com/RuckCohlchez/status/1166930678539096064