Gillibrand Hires New Aide, Signaling Presidential Run Is Imminent

[DonViejo]

Depending on when she announces her decision, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York could become the second high-profile Democrat to join the race, after Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.

Karsten Moran for The New York Times

By Alexander Burns
Jan. 11, 2019

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York has hired a communications director for an expected presidential campaign, a sign that she is all but certain to join the race against President Trump and that her entry may be imminent.

Ms. Gillibrand has recruited Meredith Kelly, formerly the top spokeswoman at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, as a senior aide to her prospective 2020 campaign, two people familiar with the decision said. Ms. Kelly was part of the team at the House committee that helped the party capture the majority in 2018, overseeing the group’s media strategy during the midterm elections.

The hire is part of a flurry of activity by Ms. Gillibrand in recent weeks as the 2020 campaign gets underway. Politico reported on Thursday night that she is preparing a trip to Iowa later this month and has been in touch with potential campaign staff members there.

Glen Caplin, a spokesman for Ms. Gillibrand, declined to comment.

Taking the step of actually retaining new staff — rather than merely conducting interviews or planning out staff recruitment — indicates that Ms. Gillibrand is probably in the very last stages of preparing for the 2020 race. Once politicians raise or spend more than $5,000 on their candidacy, they have just 15 days to file paperwork forming a campaign with the Federal Election Commission.

more
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/11/us/politics/gillibrand-2020-presidential-run.html

[dem4decades]

1. Al Franken. That is all i need to know.

[Pachamama]

2. [phone]

[leftofcool]

40. +1

[OnDoutside]

47. [phone]

[wellst0nev0ter]

50. She believed a lying birther over Franken

never forget:

[Trumpocalypse]

55. Plus 7 other women

and so over 30 other Senators including Warren, Sanders, Booker and Harris.

[wellst0nev0ter]

60. Ah it's you again

three lying trumpanzees, four anonymous accusers and Tina Dupuy, who doesn't like being held at the waist.

You prove they're actually telling the truth, that Al Franken committed criminal sexual assault, because people shouldn't be punished based on a simple allegation. That's why we have the concept of "burden of proof."

[Trumpocalypse]

65. Prove your accusation

that all 7 were lying. And I don’t think any accused him of criminal assault.

[wellst0nev0ter]

69. You're going to believe a birther?

And alleged assault victims who voted for an admitted pussygrabber? Also, good luck proving anonymous accusations.

You really want to die on that hill, don't you?

[Trumpocalypse]

70. I'm not going to call 7 women

liars just because they accused someone I like. We should hold everyone to the same standards yet I never see anyone here lamenting about what happened to John Conyers, who fought for progressive causes for over 20 years, just the celebrity white guy.

[wellst0nev0ter]

74. Playing the race card, are we?

Keep reaching for those straws. Conyers allegations came from Dem staffers who were named and known to all parties, and there was at least one monetary settlement involved. They're not the same.

However, we do know the ringleader against Franken, Leann Tweeden, is a known liar and ratfucker, and the other trumpanzee women are not credible due to the fact that they voted for a pussygrabber.

[Trumpocalypse]

76. So because they voted for someone you don't like

they should be considered liars. Interesting standard. So you’re saying that over 30 Senators were conned?

[wellst0nev0ter]

89. Yep, all those senators were wrong

and if you were sexually assaulted, would you vote for a pussygrabber? Think

[Trumpocalypse]

91. They never claimed they were assaulted

And your assumption that anyone who had been assulted would never vote for Trump is not correct. People are far more complex than that and sometimes have contradictory behaviors and actions.

[wellst0nev0ter]

95. So Franken never actually assaulted them

Thanks for refuting your own argument for me.

[Trumpocalypse]

97. No one ever said he did.

That was never the point.

[wellst0nev0ter]

99. So what did he do? Take a photo?

Stop moving the goalposts.

[Trumpocalypse]

111. If you don't know what he did

you should investigate the matter.

[wellst0nev0ter]

135. With an ethics investigation, perhaps?

You're bad at this.

[Trumpocalypse]

140. You really believe that the GOP Senators

on the ethics committee would have give Franken a fair hearing. And an ethics committee investigation is not a finding of guilt or innocence, just a determination if congressional ethics rules had been violated.

[wellst0nev0ter]

142. So the only fair thing was to throw Franken out?

Like I said, you want to score points, but you're bad at this.

[Trumpocalypse]

149. Life is unfair sometime.

I'm not trying to score points but to recognize reality. Hey what happened to Franken sucks. It was very unfair. But he would never have gotten a fair hearing that would have exonerated him. The republicans would have never allowed that.

But it is also unfair to assume that all 7 other women were lying GOP operatives with out any evidence to prove that. And also unfair to demonize one single Senator when over 30 others also called for Franken to resign on the very same morning.

[wellst0nev0ter]

157. A GOP controlled hearing

is a whole fairer than booting someone without a hearing at alll.

Gillibrand needs to accept responsibility for what she did, and her ilk should stop trying to have things both ways.

[Trumpocalypse]

158. A GOP controlled hearing would be a circus

They would have used it demonized and humiliated Franken and paint Democrats as hypocrites.

And it is unfair to single out Gillibrand when over 30 other Senators also called for Franken's resignation the same morning, many within minutes. It is easy now in hindsight for many to beat their chests about this, but they forget about the climate at the time and Franken's fellow Senators were not the first to call for him to resign: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/11/al-franken-should-resign-immediately.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/11/20/why-democrats-should-tell-al-franken-to-resign/?utm_term=.0be9f4590ffe
https://newrepublic.com/minutes/145901/al-franken-resign
https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/20/opinions/al-franken-must-resign-opinion-perry/index.html

[wellst0nev0ter]

160. Franken asked for the hearing

so you're taking that option away? And Gillibrand is still responsible, along with the rest of the lynch mob.

And this thread pokes holes in the stories of the other trumpanzee accusers, so believe them at your own risk.

Link to tweet

[Trumpocalypse]

161. After the first accusation

By the time there were another 7 he choose to resign.

But it is good to know that you hold all the Senators responsible. But why do you only ever mention one?

Where have holes been poked? I haven’t seen any links which have credible evidence that any of the other 7 were lying?

[wellst0nev0ter]

162. Read the thread

Go ahead, I'll wait.

[Trumpocalypse]

164. Have

What is your point?

[wellst0nev0ter]

166. How haven't the holes been poked?

Still waiting, btw

[Trumpocalypse]

167. Because there is no evidence to support

It is just opinion, not facts. Show some links that have credible evidence that the other 7 were all lying.

[wellst0nev0ter]

168. Nope, you show in detail how his argument doesn't hold up.

Take as many post as you need to refute each and every one of his points.

See? I can sealion just like the best of them.

[Trumpocalypse]

170. I don't have to refute opinion

and very biased opinion.

Post links with credible and verifiable facts that prove all the others were lying.

[wellst0nev0ter]

172. Prove that they are opinions

I'll wait.

[Trumpocalypse]

173. They are not?

And please post links to support. I've been asking for months for credible links that prove that all the other 7 women were lying and never have seen one posted. Instead it is the same evasions and diversions over and over again.

[wellst0nev0ter]

174. I've already posted the links

and I will keep posting them until you address them honestly.

[Trumpocalypse]

178. Go ahead

Post links that prove that all 7 other women were lying.

[Trumpocalypse]

188. And as usual

Crickets!

[OnDoutside]

192. Well said. At least we know the new excuse they're resorting to is

that she saved him from a GOP controlled ethics committee ! So in actual fact, Franken should be grateful that she stabbed him in the back, to save him !!!! 😂

[wellst0nev0ter]

193. And at the same time they demand proof that Franken is innocent

which would usually require some kind of investigation

[Trumpocalypse]

194. Then just post the links that

prove all the other 7 women were lying.

[OnDoutside]

199. Funny that....

I guess you should bear in mind that they know she's about as popular as the Black Death, on this forum, and it's not easy to defend her with any degree of rationality when everyone knows what she did. It's like trying to defend someone caught cheating at golf.

[trueblue2007]

251. i think the Black Death is more popular than she is.

[Trumpocalypse]

195. Shouldn't you that be

“they saved him “ and “they stabbed him in the back “ since it was over 30 Senators who called for Franken to resign?

[OnDoutside]

198. Actually no. Shame on them for not thinking straight when Gillibrand showed naked ambition

toward her fellow Democrat (and one for the favourites for 2020 at the time) by stabbing him in the back, but they were content to let the Ethics investigation take its course, up to her brazen act. I understand your undying support for her would lead you to try and spread the shit amongst the others, but it doesn't wash.

[Trumpocalypse]

200. So they were just all blind followers?

Doesn't speak well for them, does it? Please produce evidence that they were and that she did it out of naked ambition. Remember to include links to credible sites to prove all your allegations.

[OnDoutside]

206. Yes, it doesn't speak well for them. Not playing. Thing is, she is so overwhelmingly unpopular on

this site, and you are in such an insignificant minority, YOU are the one who needs to come up with evidence, links etc. We were all here at the time she did what she did. Good luck with that.

[Trumpocalypse]

215. So no links

So you admit you can’t prove your allegations.

[OnDoutside]

231. If I was interested in playing, I would, but you're the one in the overwhelming minority on this

site, so the onus is on you to prove WE are all wrong and she is as pure as the driven snow. As I said, good luck with that !

[Trumpocalypse]

233. Nothing wrong with being in the minority

Being in the majority doesn’t make anyone right just as being in the minority does make anyone wrong.

I ‘m not the one making accusations. I’m asking those who are to prove theirs.

[OnDoutside]

235. Nothing wrong with it when you are in the right, but you aren't. You're standing up for

someone who backstabbed a fine Democratic Senator, and a potential front runner for the 2020 race. She gave him no chance to have his good name vindicated, and for this she will never be forgiven by so many here, and as she will find out, nationally too. I'm genuinely sorry for you that you've pinned your hopes in the Veruca Salt of the Democratic Party.

[Trumpocalypse]

237. That is your opinion

I’m standing up for fairness. To demonize one person for what was an action taken by many and to ascribe malicious motives to that person with no evidence is unfair. And just because the majority, or mob, here disagrees; I’m not going to be bullied in to silence.

[OnDoutside]

238. And I'm standing up against the lack of fairness for Al Franken. So we all can have our opinion.

[Trumpocalypse]

239. Never said that what happened to Franken

was fair. But I’m not going to demonize one person unfairly for it. These things are very complex and not so black & white.

[OnDoutside]

245. Oh, that's nice to hear.

[trueblue2007]

253. AL FRANKEN was NOT treated fairly at all. Guillibrand treated him with contempt. I can't forgive

someone who treats a Democratic collegiate with such malice.

[Trumpocalypse]

254. Not treated fairly by over 30 Senators

not just one.

[LBM20]

217. Sadly, this is one where the Senators WRONGLY rushed ONLY for political expediency. But,

Gillibrand led the charge so she stands out. The whole SHITTY thing was a right wing rat fuck job, and Franken was a VICTIM. There should have been proper due process. Some or most of the accusers were confirmed Trumpists who voted for the scumbag pussygrabber and serial adulterer and pathological liar. Shame on the cavers, and especially shame on Gillibrand for leading the charge on that witch hunt.

[Trumpocalypse]

220. So all the other Senators

were just blind followers? And all 7 other women were GOP operatives and were lying? I’ll ask the same question I’ve been asking for over a year now and never have gotten an answer. Do you have evidence that proves your accusations? Please remember to find links to credible sources?

[bitterross]

81. You prove they weren't lying / nt

[Trumpocalypse]

85. So women don't deserve to be believed?

Kind of refutes the whole Me Too movement.

[wellst0nev0ter]

90. Yeah, their claims need to be investigated

which was not what happened in Franken's case, which makes it a lynching.

[Trumpocalypse]

92. So you are refuting the whole Me Too movement

Are you as upset about Bill Cosby, Matt Lauer, Kevin Spacy, Charlie Rose?

[wellst0nev0ter]

94. Why are you caping for trumpanzees?

stay on topic

[Trumpocalypse]

96. Not all were

And you have to come up with better evidence to prove that they were lying. The evidence against Tweeden is clear but not the other 7.

[Drahthaardogs]

98. The picture of Franken with the last crazy clearly

Shows him with a hand on her and it's in NO WAY sexual. SHE asked HIM to pose for a picture.

Why are you carrying Roger Stone's water?

Do I hear the tippity tap-tapping of goats on a bridge?

[Trumpocalypse]

110. What evidence is there

that Tina Dupay was working with Roger Stone?

[Drahthaardogs]

114. She wasn't. She's just a loon.

The others were a hack job with Hannity's help. It's more or less been proven. Lascivious behavior on a USO Tour is kind of the point of a USO Tour. It's tawdry adult humor geared to 18 year olds. It's all bullshit but an element here wants what they want, and at any cost, even one of our best Senators.

Gillibrand fucked up and no, it's not just the bloggers. Many of the big donors have already given her a big No Thanks.

[Trumpocalypse]

115. What evidence is there that all

the others were right wing hacki. Please provide links.

And there over 30 Senators who called for Franken to resign on the same morning. Do you hold them all equally accountable?

[Drahthaardogs]

116. It's been posted here a million times.

The video of her ass grabbing. The lie that he "wrote the script to kiss her" yet the very same skit had been done two years earlier with a DIFFERENT actress.

Lies, lies, and more lies and you are perpetuating them.

[LBM20]

212. SPOT ON CORRECT! Franken's "accusers" where Trumpists and nutjobs pumped up by right wing media or

a desire for 15 minutes of fame. My god, the whole "he squeezed my waist" during a photo at a crowded event doesn't pass the smell test. What a load of silly whacko SHIT. Franken got screwed over bigtime. It was totally SHITTY, and Gillibrand isn't going ANYWHERE.

[Bradshaw3]

102. All those you mention went through an investigative process

Either legal or through their employers. Franken never got that, so stop trying to compare them. You are just reaching for anything to justify your opinion, just like the right wingers who attacked Franken do.

[Trumpocalypse]

113. Not at first

Some have since for criminal wrong doing. Some haven't and just lost their jobs which was what happened to Franken. And do you really believe the Republicans on the ethics committee would have given Franken a fair hearing?

[Bradshaw3]

117. Wrong, they all went through an investigative process

I don't know how "not at first" or "just lost their jobs" is supposed to change the fast that ALL went through some kind of investigative process. The reason they lost their jobs is because they went through a process, and were found culpable; Franken wasn't given that opportunity. Stop using misrepresentations or deflections to argue a case you don't have. Based on the number of posts and the many repetitive posts you are obviously obsessed with this subject but that doesn't give you the right to misrepresent.

[Trumpocalypse]

118. I'm not misrepresenting anything

What investigative process did Matt Lauer go through or Charlie Rose. They were fired overnight. What investigation did Kevin Spacy go through? Even both Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby were publically demonized before criminal investigations had started.

Like it or 7 women accused Franken of inappropriate behavior. It is obvious that Leeann Tweeden was a right wing hack. But no evidence has ever been produced that any of the others were or were lying.

And I’ll ask again, do you really think the republicans on the ethics committee would have given Franken a fair hearing?

[Bradshaw3]

132. Yes you did

Or are at the very least are severely misinformed.

The title of this story is: NBC Fires Matt Lauer after Sexual Misconduct Review

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/sexual-misconduct/nbc-news-fires-today-anchor-matt-lauer-after-sexual-misconduct-n824831

And on Charlie Rose:

He was suspended, then fired:
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/21/cbs-fires-charlie-rose-after-sexual-misconduct-allegations.html

To portray these examples of sexual misconduct as akin to the Franken situation as if they were comparable is ridiculous, and only reveals a bias for some as yet unstated reason. And where would there be evidence of the Franken - I hestitate to call them accusers because that would playing into the hands of the right wing media and people like yourself who are attempting to create a false equivalency between people like Rose and Lauer and even Cosby (who were accused of much more serious behavior) - because there was NO investigation.

I'll say it again, Franken was not given the same opportunity as others as you list, and to say he was is just more false equivalency trying to link him with some who have been convicted of heinous crimes. Again, strange that a poster on DU takes this tack but I guess we're not going to find out why.

[Trumpocalypse]

145. Never said that what Franken was accused of

was as bad as Lauer or Rose or the others.

The point of the Me Too movement is that any disrespectful behavior toward women is unacceptable whether it be sexual abuse or inappropriate touching. Another is that women deserve to be believed especially when several make the same accusation. If those are false equivalencies, then the entire Me Too movement is based on false equivalencies.

As far as Rose and Lauer and some others, there was no public hearing. Just internal reviews. You nor I know how extensive these were or what their findings were.

[Bradshaw3]

152. You keep inserting those names into the discussion

So yes you're trying to link them. An internal review is more than Franken ever got, which is obvious but you won't admit. Again, for some unexpained reason.

[Trumpocalypse]

155. But they are linked

whether you like it or not. Take a look at this: https://on.cc.com/2FdOpKM Go to 14:40. That is not me trying to link them.

And just as neither of us knows what those internal reviews entailed, we don't know what happened behind the scenes in the Senate either. What we do know is none got a public hearing.

[Drahthaardogs]

153. Oooooo, now Tweeden is "OBVIOUSLY" a RW hack

A few posts ago we could NOT discredit her because if her voting record

[Trumpocalypse]

156. No that was in regard to

two of the other women. I've always thought that Tweeden was suspect:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029850032
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029851249

[bitterross]

120. DON'T YOU DARE TWIST MY WORDS THAT WAY! THAT'S NOT AT ALL WHAT I SAID.

How dare you put that meaning and words into my mouth and defame my character that way.

Our standard of justice is that we go to court and prove witnesses are telling the truth. No matter if they are male or female. We do not automatically assume everyone is pure and without motives. This should be especially clear when it comes to GOP operative like the ones involved in the Al Franken case.

DO NOT TWIST MY WORDS THAT WAY!

[Trumpocalypse]

121. That is the standard for criminal prosecution

I don't believe he was accused of doing anything criminal.

And is there any proof that any of the 7 women, other than Tweeden, was a GOP operative? Please provide links.

[bitterross]

126. I'm not debating you. You are only interested in scoring points

It's clear from your exchange above with wellst0nev0ter you are not interested in a reasonable debate and the possibility of having your opinion changed. You're only interested in confirming your bias and feeding your ego by thinking you're smarter in your responses than someone else is.

You think you have a point. You think that we are discarding an entire movement because we need more than a person's word to ruin another person's life. We are not. We simply see that there is a difference between the people who came forward against Al Franken and the people who came forward against Trump and Kavanaugh. One set of people had more credibility and were not backed by people like Roger Stone.

I'm not discarding the entire MeToo movement because I don't take every person at their word. Please note, my standard for males coming forward is the same as for females.

It is YOU, who has the narrow view, a bias. Not me. You are only allowing for the possibility that EVERY accuser is honest, and truthful. That's just not the case.

I pity people in you life who have to deal with your twisted logic:

That is the standard for criminal prosecution

I don't believe he was accused of doing anything criminal.

Umm, yes, he was accused of assault. He wasn't charged, but he was clearly accused.

And is there any proof that any of the 7 women, other than Tweeden, was a GOP operative? Please provide links.


One was more than enough in the Al Franken case. Especially given the history of the dirty tricks and general malfeasance of the GOP.


I KNOW you will respond to this. You can't stop yourself. I won't respond to you though.

[Trumpocalypse]

137. So because Tweeden was backed by Roger Stone

that discredits all 7 other women. That sounds like twisted logic to me. I've been asking for several months for any evidence that all the other 7 women were lying and no one has produced any.

My logic is pretty straight forward:

A) We can't have one standard of belief for one person, because we like them, and a different one for everyone else.

B) It is unfair to demonize one Senator and give a pass to over 30 others who all called for Franken to resign on the same morning.

I'm interested in truth and facts. One fact is that Franken was never accused of assault. He was accused of inappropriate behavior. At a different time, he would not have had to resign. It is unfortunate that they came at the height of the Me Too movement.

[bitterross]

229. I knew you'd take one statement and run with it. Ignoring the overall message.

Instead of trying to understand the whole, you focused on the thing that confirmed your own bias.

Let me explain. I do not think all the other women are liars like Tweeden. The one that says he suggested they go to the bathroom I believe is another liar and plant to back up Tweeden and give her more credibility.

I think the women are mistaken about Franken's intent. I believe they had the encounters they described. I just don't think Franken's intent in those encounters was to obtain sexual gratification or to display power over them. I suspect that most of the people you continue to argue with who you keep asking for proof they lied feel the same way I do. I ran a quick google search and I didn't find tons of articles saying they lied.

As for your point B, I am not "demonizing" anyone. I'm holding them accountable for poor judgement. Since you are not in my brain or anyone else's you do not know if I am holding the other 29 accountable or not. You can bet I'm as angry with all the rest as I am with Gilliabrand and I will not support them either.

Now, see what one statement in this post you can take out of context and post about. I'm sure you'll find something.

[Trumpocalypse]

230. I agree with you about Franken's intent

It is doubtful the he or anyone would gain sexual gratification from such encounters. However, regardless of his intent these encounters did leave the women feeling disrespected. And that is the point.

I'm glad that you are holding all the Senators equally accountable for their poor judgement. Unfortunately, many here don't and have singled out one to demonize.

[LBM20]

204. It needed to be properly investigated and vetted. Many were LAME and some confirmed TRUMPISTS! What

about the MANY women who worked with Franken for DECADES and said he NEVER did ANYTHING improper? What about them??

No due process. Some were saying he "squeezed my waist" during a photo. What a load SHIT! Is that what's going for "groping" these days. You put your arm around someone in a crowded room for a photo, someone THINKS there was a "waist squeeze" and that is reason to say the person intended to sexually assault someone? What a load of SHIT.

Franken got screwed over, and it was a SHITTY SHITTY thing. Period!

[Trumpocalypse]

211. Franken did get screwed

No argument about that. But coming at the height of the Me Too movement, he was an unfortunate causality.

[LBM20]

223. Yup. It was HYSTERIA and the timing of the thing, and it is an important lesson of history that

should have already been learned. You don't rush to judgement. That is called WITCH HUNTING! That is called HYSTERIA!

It was SHITTY BUSH LEAGUE CRAP!

SHAME ON IT!

[LBM20]

209. It is YOUR burden to prove they were telling the truth. The accused is the one who gets due process!

Last edited Sun Jan 13, 2019, 12:09 PM - Edit history (1)

You had three confirmed Trumpanzees, four anonymous (probably Trumpists), and one who claimed he squeezed her waist during a picture in an extrememly crowded room. That goofy nonsense doesn't pass the straight face test. It simply could have been her perception, or he was simply putting his arm around her waist and it is natural for someone to contract their hand a bit when putting an arm around someone's waist for a quick photo in a crowded and busy room at an event. My god. That one was such nonsense. And a few others were also about something like that during photos. It STINKS.

And also, what about the MANY women who worked closely with Franken for YEARS and said he NEVER did ANYTHING inappropriate?What about them? This was a WITCH HUNT and Gillibrand led the charge. It STINKS and she will go nowhere because of it.

[Trumpocalypse]

218. I can't

But never said I could. But I'm not going to assume that all 7 were lying either without credible evidence.

And to demonize one Senator when over 30 others, including Warren, Sanders and Harris, all called for Franken’s resignation the very same morning, some within minutes; is just unfair.

[LBM20]

224. It was political shit at the height of a hysterical moment in our history. Bottom line, THEY have

burden of proof, the credibility of most or all the "accusers" is in grave doubt as many are confirmed Trumpists and the "waist squeeze" thing doesn't pass the straight face test, and GILLIBRAND LED THE CHARGE and that is why SHE stands out. Simple as that. What happened to Franken was WRONG.

Gillibrand won't go anywhere.

[Trumpocalypse]

225. Sorry but I can't buy

that over 30 other Senators just blindly followed Gillibrand. People like Warren, Sanders, Booker and Harris are not sheep an Gillibrand doesn't have that kind of power. When you look at the speed in which things happened on the morning of December 6th and how quickly others called for Franken's resignation after Gillibrand did, it had to be something that was orchestrated by Schumer.

[sfwriter]

129. He wanted a full investigation, unlike any other predator ever.

And don't forget, one of them only "felt fat" when he touched her waist... in a photo...

[Trumpocalypse]

139. Do you really thing the GOP Senators

on the ethics committee would have given Franken a fair hearing?

[sfwriter]

141. No, it would turn out like Benghazi...

...and we would likely learn a lot along the way. I would have loved to have heard more about how Roger Stone knew, and the week of meetings at her station that preceded the first accuser's statement, and the conflicting memories of that USO photo by the photographer.

[Trumpocalypse]

148. Unfortunately, I doubt that would have happened

It would have been a circus like the numerous Benghazi investigations. The Republicans would have used those hearings to humiliate and demonize Franken and any Dem who tried to defend him would have been painted as a hypocrite.

[trueblue2007]

250. AH IT IS YOU AGAIN. I agree with what wellst0nev0ter said about you.

[Trumpocalypse]

255. Oh I'm so devastated

LMAO

[Power 2 the People]

79. +1

Never.

[Trumpocalypse]

57. So you are a single issue voter?

[dem4decades]

73. No two issue voter. Justice and fairness. There's many great Democratic candidates in the running.

That didn't lead the charge against Franken.

[Trumpocalypse]

75. Like Warren, Harris and Sanders?

All of whom called for Franken’s resignation.

And don’t women have a right to justice and fairness if they feel disrespected. Or is justice and fairness only reserved for celebrity white men?

[dem4decades]

78. She led the charge, others followed. He was denied a fair hearing. We're done.

[Trumpocalypse]

83. So Warren, Sanders and Harris are just mindless followers?

Doesn’t sound good for them.

[dem4decades]

84. Done

[Trumpocalypse]

86. Is that a yes or a no?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

179. Fair enough.

[sfwriter]

130. Lots of better candidates out there.

Al Franken was all I needed to see.

[Trumpocalypse]

146. I won't argue with that

There are better candidates to take on Trump. But to demonize one while giving over 30 others a pass is unfair just as it is unfair to judge a person by one action rather than their entire career.

[NYFlip]

63. +1

[mn9driver]

107. + a million.

We needed Franken. We still do.

[dem4decades]

181. He took on Rush years ago and Sessions a year ago.

He's been a Democratic warrior for years.

[Doremus]

144. +++1000000 nt

[DemKittyNC]

154. AGREED!

Will never forgive her for this!

[meatwitheyes]

163. +1

[trueblue2007]

249. I AGREE. in my mind, she blew it.

[madaboutharry]

3. She's not my candidate.

I don’t see her making it to the finish line. She has burned too many bridges.

[brooklynite]

11. No objection if you don't want to support her personally...

...but what evidence do you have that she "burned too many bridges"?

[jcgoldie]

17. Look down the thread

Franken had a lot of bridges to democrats.

[brooklynite]

18. I've looked down many of these threads...

A bunch of bloggers in an online forum do not constitute anything close to a representation of the 30 M people who will be voting in the Democratic Primary.

[jcgoldie]

21. I disagree

Could she turn it around with impressive performances on the stump? Sure its early. But the fact that one of the largest online groups who actively follows democratic politics throughout the year when most other people aren't thinking of elections has such an almost universally negative impression of her based on her own actions... yes that constitutes an opportunity cost, aka bridges burned.

[padah513]

33. Well said

[Trumpocalypse]

58. Must be why she won re-election with

over 66% of the vote. A higher percentage the any other Democratic candidate in New York and every other Democratic Senate candidate in the country.

[LeftInTX]

169. She isn't inspiring either. I can't see voters getting excited about her

Sure she has done well in her senatorial elections, but this is president and voters want to be inspired.

[brooklynite]

171. That is enitrely possible..:

...but is not the argument of the Franken brigade.

[OnDoutside]

48. And she burned her Clinton bridges in cynical style, won't help her.

[brush]

182. Spot on. Any Dem who doesn't get the Clinton's support won't go far...

as they still have a ton of influence in the party.

And she once had it but lost it when she threw Bill under the same bus she shoved Al under.

[OnDoutside]

191. Yes and that was all about the same time. Perhaps it was a

brainfart that she now privately regrets, but it was a massive error of judgement. Just viewing the overwhelming majority of opinion that is negative towards her here, I cannot believe that she doesn't understand what hurt she caused.

[Trumpocalypse]

196. Then again

maybe the fact she won re-election with the highest margin of victory than any other Democratic Senator in the country and any Democrat in New York State shows that the overwhelming majority of negative opinion only exists in a small bubble.

[OnDoutside]

203. At an election where all Dem boats were lifted. Yeah, have fun in the national spotlight.

[Trumpocalypse]

208. And her boat

was lifted higher than anyone else’s.

[OnDoutside]

213. Hahaha, very funny ! I'm going to bookmark your post for when the primary results come in !

[Trumpocalypse]

219. Never said she would win a primary

Just saying the Franken affair didn’t hurt her re-election at all.

[OnDoutside]

232. That's a fairly weak crutch to hang on to in deep blue NY.

[Trumpocalypse]

234. And she still got a higher

percentage of the vote than any other statewide Democrat and higher than Feinstein in the deep blue state of California and Warren in the deep blue state of Massachusetts.

[OnDoutside]

236. lol

[brush]

210. Ridiculous. Any Democrat would've won in deep blue New York.

[OnDoutside]

214. +1

[Trumpocalypse]

216. True

but I’m talking about margin of victory. It was over 66%. That’s higher than Gov. Cuomo and higher than any other Democratic senatorial candidate nationwide including those in very blue states.

[handmade34]

4. No...

not gonna happen, not presidential material, she shouldn't waste her time

[WeekiWater]

5. I like her a lot. Great spokesperson for us.

I'm just not sure how deep resentment over Franken goes. Then again, I don't get why every person who called for his resignation except for her gets a pass. Is the resentment an online thing or does it extend further. I don't think it extends much further. She would immediately be one of my top choices. So would Franken if he entered.

[jrthin]

56. She's my Senator and I'd gladly like for her to be primaried. nt

[Trumpocalypse]

59. You have 5 years to find a challenger

She just won re-election.

[WeekiWater]

62. Who are you looking to take the mantle?

I’m always down for a good primary fight. Are you looking for her to be primaries from the right or left?

[jrthin]

71. A solid dem. nt

[WeekiWater]

72. Ok.

Who? From the right or left? I thought those were fair questions. Solid dem doesn’t make sense. She fits in the only broad spectrum you outlined. Not much room to the left of her in the senate.

http://www.ontheissues.org/NY/Kirsten_Gillibrand.htm

[brush]

183. Let her stay in the Senate as her seat is safe in blue New York.

As far as presidential politics she can forget it with the Al Franken and Bill Clinton under-the-bus-shoving baggage she's carrying.

[TheCowsCameHome]

6. No sale.

Sorry.

[oasis]

7. More time in senate for this senator would be my recommendation.

2028 would be a good time to test the waters again.

[Trumpocalypse]

61. She and over 30 other Senators

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

64. YEP.

[MoonRiver]

9. Ugh

I knew it was coming, but ugh.

[Paladin]

10. I give not a shit. (nt)

[Indykatie]

41. Gillibrand Plans to Announce

Who is Gillebrand's key constituency that would propel her POTUS run? Harris, Biden, Beto and Warren all have a core of support that can be relied on in the primaries. KG has morphed into one of the most liberal voting Dems in the Senate but there's seems to be little excitement around any pending POTUS run. I saw a M Moore thread asking for 2020 POTUS preferences and in 1000+ comments I doubt her name was mentioned more than 5 times. I also think she underestimates the damage that her treatment of Franken did to any planned run. Fairly or not she is seen as opportunistic by more than a few Dems.

[jrthin]

12. UGH!!!!! nt

[Mr. Quackers]

13. To paraphrase Waylon Jennings

If Franken hadn't been railroaded, well I guess he'd a been a train.

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

14. Ugh. No thanks.

[NurseJackie]

15. I do not trust or respect her judgement. I can't support her.

[EffieBlack]

100. Me, neither

Between her treatment of the Clintons and Al Franken, she's waaayyy down on my list. If she's the last person standing after the primaries - which I sincerely doubt will happen - I'll support her, of course. But absent that, I would back about anyone other than her since I don't trust her any further than I could throw her.

[Metatron]

147. That is exactly how I feel

She is only above Gabbard in the candidate list for me.

[c-rational]

222. Agreed, as a New Yorker I held my nose and voted for her.

[R B Garr]

248. Same here. Her judgment about the Clinton's and Franken

have turned me off, as others have also said. She has boxed herself in. I can’t see how she gets around what she said about Bill C after needing their suppprt for Hillary’s seat. Hillary would still be a great Senator.....

[stonecutter357]

16. lol !

[milestogo]

19. In other news, elderly man brings a dead raccoon into McDonalds.

https://www.wmur.com/article/bizarre-video-elderly-man-brings-dead-raccoon-into-mcdonald-s-restaurant/25855055

[Autumn]

20. .

[dalton99a]

46. +1

[ProudLib72]

77. This is LBN material!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

227. Good one!!

[Sunsky]

22. Nah.

[BlueStater]

23. She can go pound sand.

She pressured Al Franken to leave the Senate against the wishes of the majority of Democratic voters and now she expects those same voters to support her. How arrogant.

[Trumpocalypse]

93. She and over 30 other Senators

And a poll taken at the time half of voters thought Franken should resign https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/22/al-franken-senate-resign-poll-257554

[helpisontheway]

24. She threw Franken under the bus a few times and ran over him again. Forget her! Nt

[Trumpocalypse]

67. So did Warren, Sanders and Harris.

[ooky]

25. She is my last choice.

If she makes it to the general election I will vote for her, but I don't see that happening after her actions with respect to Al Franken.

[redstatebluegirl]

26. She won't last long after what she did to Al Franken.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

27. She really shouldn't bother - she isn't going anywhere.

[Trumpocalypse]

68. With the help of over 30 other Senators

[brush]

184. You keep saying that but that doesn't change what she did.

The others jumped on the bandwagon she created clearly because they thought she was going to get a jump on them in presidential preferences in the future, which is exactly what she was shooting for.

[Trumpocalypse]

187. So the others were just blind followers?

And how do you know exactly what she was shooting for?

[MrsCoffee]

53. That is completely uncalled for.

[Blue Owl]

29. Sorry

She would be among my last choices after the Franken treatment...

[dlk]

30. After Her Handling of the Franken Matter, Gillibrand Has Much to Overcome

The same goes for Joe Biden and his handling of the Anita Hill matter. These will be high bars for both of them to get past.

[BannonsLiver]

32. Only if you're living in 1991.

[LongtimeAZDem]

37. +1 /nt

[brush]

185. You're fooling yourself if you think that won't come up.

[LongtimeAZDem]

186. Anyone who attempts to deflect with stiff Biden did 28 years ago will be buried with their own

more recent changes in stance. You can't say "people can change" while attacking someone for something from three decades ago.

Gillibrand was to the right of Trump on immigration 10 years ago, Gabbard was ranted against "homosexual extremists" in the early 2000's , and Warren was a Republican until five years after the Anita Hill hearings.

[PubliusEnigma]

31. meh.

[Vinnie From Indy]

34. I will not support her in the primaries

[Progressive dog]

35. Gillibrand is a Democrat

who was re-elected by an overwhelming margin in New York. She should run.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

36. There is a whole lot of territory outside New York.

Here in Minnesota (yes, I know we're just flyover country so who cares?) she will be as popular as a case of hemorrhoids for how she treated Al Franken.

[Progressive dog]

51. New York has a lot more votes than some states,

and Gillibrand does well here.
Of course Minnesota did almost go to Trump, and that was when Al Franken had still not been accused by eight women + two witnesses (and a photo) of inappropriate behavior.

[LakeSuperiorView]

105. Minnesota has been the most reliable blue state for President in the past 50 years.

New York has voted 3 times for Republican Presidents. That's three time more often then Minnesota.

Which is the more Republican state?

[Progressive dog]

122. President only elections for last fifty years

don't really mean much. BTW 1972 is less than 50 years ago and Minnesota did vote Republican that yea

[LakeSuperiorView]

124. Hmmm... We were only talking presidential elections.

The OP is about a possible presidential candidate, you made the awkward comment that Minnesota "almost" voted for Trump (Hint: almost doesn't count in winner take all contests) and I said "most reliable blue state for President". Which kind of squarely centers this discussion around Presidential elections.

I clearly stated that Minnesota voted once for a Republican in the last 50 years, if one understand that 3 is 3 times more than 1...

If you want to broaden the conversation, we can talk about how the New York state senate pissed away the Democratic majority with the Independent Democratic Conference that collaborated with Republicans...

I ask again, which is the more Republican state? The one that helped elect three Republican presidents and has "Democratic" state senators that worked with the Republican party? Or the one that only voted for a Republican once (where the only state that didn't was Mass.) Big hint for you: Facts are not on your side.

Gillibrand is a fine Senator and I hope you keep her for a very long time as your senator.

[Progressive dog]

125. No, I was talking about a specific election

while Al Franken was Senator.

[LakeSuperiorView]

128. And that was what kind of an election?

Was Gillibrand going to run in that election?

[Progressive dog]

131. I migt not vote for Gillibrand in the next primaries

but my vote won't have anything to do with Al Franken.

[LakeSuperiorView]

150. Congratulations. You maybe have made a decision.

Maybe not. Which reminds me of something, but I can't put a finger on it..

[MyOwnPeace]

106. And Hillary got more votes than IQ45

How did that work out?

[Progressive dog]

123. Would it have been better if Hillary had gotten fewer votes?

[MyOwnPeace]

127. Obviously, it's not "how many" - but "where"

and her "strength" in her home state does not, at this point (read the rest of this thread) seem to translate into other states.
She may be yours and that's fine if that is who your state wants. Mitch McTurtle seems to be holding his own in his state (at least so far).
That does not mean the rest of the country will follow.

[Progressive dog]

133. Of course the election is not being held now

and comments in this thread are not relevant to how the millions of Democrats will vote.

[MyOwnPeace]

134. But the comments can contribute

to their decision on who to support.
While this site reaches a small number of those who will vote, it also allows many to consider how they want to vote and thus it is important to add any relevance (as perceived by those following the thread) to the discussion.
*State the good points
*Rebut the others
*Watch the results

[Progressive dog]

136. Russians and Hillary haters gave us Trump by their propaganda

The anti-Gillibrand propaganda has already started.

[sarcasmo]

43. She wouldn't win a Democratic primary in Minnesota let alone the nomination.

[Progressive dog]

49. That's an opinion and you are entitled to it

I imagine Minnesota has a few women Democrats who might feel differently.

[PatSeg]

38. Nope

I was never really crazy about her, but her leading the charge against Franken was the last straw for me.

Beyond her treatment of Al Franken, her positions on gun control have been very flaky and inconsistent. According to Mayor Bloomberg, "She has voted to keep critical data needed to track illegal gun traffickers from law enforcement, has voted to tie the hands of the ATF, and has also voted to protect dealers who sell guns illegally."

But all that changed when Hillary's seat opened up, and she shamelessly promoted herself as a candidate to fill it. Within days Gillibrand's raw ambition had trumped her stated principles, and she began flipping on all kinds of critical issues. As a new senator, Gillibrand was transformed from a rabid opponent of gun control--with a 100% rating from the NRA--to a cosponsor of gun control legislation. In 2007, she had sponsored a bill to delete background check information after 24 hours; now she suddenly voted to repeal her very own bill.

Does she still keep two guns under her bed, as she claimed during the campaign? She hasn't said.

http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Kirsten_Gillibrand_Gun_Control.htm

She went from a very high rating from the NRA to an "F".

[Takket]

39. We don't need a president

Who wheels and fires her gun on nothing more than the demands of the GOP.

[sarcasmo]

42. Self delete since everything is being flagged.

Last edited Thu Jan 17, 2019, 02:15 PM - Edit history (1)

[LW1977]

44. Won't get nominated..

Not a chance.

[quickesst]

45. Gillibrand is a proven opportunist....

.... who uses and creates opportunities that only benefit herself, and because so many people are aware of these practices, her goal of becoming president will be doomed from the start. Her latest? After stating that she will serve out her full six-year term, barely two weeks later she is flip-flopping on that promise. A simple Google search tells the tale.

[samnsara]

52. all these great women! what if i actually do NOT know who to caucus/vote for in the primary?

[aeromanKC]

54. Gillibrand is my LEAST favorite candidate

And pretty sure I am not alone!! (Actually seeing many posts already, I am not)

[Still In Wisconsin]

66. How about no?

I prefer Democrats who DON’T throw Democrats under the bus for their own personal advancement.

[MyOwnPeace]

108. Must be a "down" time..........

It's been over 24 hours since you posted this and I don't see the 2 big "apologists" responding yet - maybe they can read the pulse better than the potential candidate can.

[Mme. Defarge]

80. Hell no!

[kacekwl]

82. Nope, sorry.

[AlexSFCA]

87. I like seeing so many candidates

I think this is good for us, dems will have ample choice which should keep all of us engaged. There will be a candidate for everyone; record turnout would be nice considering that so many state and local elections are typically bundled with primaries. Gop will only have trump, lol; which potentially means record low gop primary turnout.

[tavernier]

88. She should save her money.

[David__77]

101. Ah, a "Blue Dog."

Supported Bush tax cuts. I’ve got no problem with the fact that she got a high NRA rating. I wonder if she will catch on.

[badhair77]

103. No thanks, unless she's the nominee.

[dhol82]

104. I will change my registration just to primary her out.

Nope.
She can stay in the senate. That’s it.

[Kurt V.]

109. I think it will take a woman beat rRump.

[aikoaiko]

112. Even knowing her missteps, I'll give her a chance

Let’s her speak, present her message, and respond to criticism.

She might be the best person for the job.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

180. Has KG responded to the criticism of her re the whole Franken affair?

[aikoaiko]

189. I read something

Basically she said it was just her opinion and others agreed. Which is true.

But she didn’t think it was s defining event dither and I don’t think she realizes how many fans of AF are angry with her,

I don’t have a link but that’s how I remember it.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

190. Thanks.

[jalan48]

119. No Thanks.

[andym]

138. Al Franken should run too

He would be an even better candidate, and would make an interesting candidate to debate Gillibrand. My personal favorites among those who achieved some recent public attention are Gillum, Abrams and O'Rourke. I hope they decide to run.

[customerserviceguy]

143. When that happens

and it will, the threads today on Tulsi Gabbard will look like a lovefest in comparison.

[elfin]

151. NEVER!!! NEVER!!!

Never never never - you get the idea.

And NEVER to the point that any frontrunner to her will be informed by quality donor me that if she is chosen to be VP nominee, I will vanish completely from their donor lists along with my many many like-minded contacts.

I prefer candidates who appreciate the importance of due process and who do not abuse their leadership abilities to drag others into their personal ambitions.

[shanny]

159. Nope. No way. No how.

[flamingdem]

165. Good luck with that..

and what she did to Al Franken.

[beachbum bob]

175. After what she did to al Franken, I wouldn't support her for dogcatcher.

[democratisphere]

176. Nope! Nope! Nope!

[LW1977]

177. Nope, Nien, nyat

[DFW]

197. No one will be stopping her if she decides to run, of course

She had better hire a few porters in that entourage of hers, considering all the baggage she will be lugging around. My personal opinion, which is, mind you, based on nothing other than 5 decades of observation and conversations with a few acquaintances from the political scene, is that she will fizzle like a rocket with an inadequate supply of fuel.

But that's just one opinion.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

201. She's a perfectly fine candidate...

She's a perfectly fine candidate, and I would support her if she was the candidate, but there are others I like better, in order:




Kamala Harris
Cory Booker
Beto
Julian Castro
Joe Biden
Amy Klobuchar
Elizabeth Warren

[LBM20]

205. She led a witch hunt against Al Franken. It was totally SHITTY and she won't gain traction.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

207. If she's everybody's eighth choice, as she is mine, you have nothing to worry about.

I just don't see a need to pile on.

[Trumpocalypse]

240. Well said nt

She doesn't have a chance if she decides to run, so why are people here so threatened?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

241. I don't see the need to trash her.

Almost every Democrat called for Franken's ouster. Was she first? Yeah, but the other Democrats have minds of their own. I heard her a couple of times and she sounded informed and passionate, and she has the distinction of voting against every Trump Cabinet member.

[Trumpocalypse]

242. Unfortunately

Mob mentality has taken over on this issue. She showed bad judgement by calling for Franken's resignation but so did the other Dems. Plus Franken could have stayed and fought but in the end he chose to resign.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

244. I will leave it to the verdict of history.

[LBM20]

202. It won't go anywhere. She led a disgusting witch hunt against Franken and people will remember.

[Bluepinky]

221. I don't like her because of her treatment of Al Franken.

Trump has been accused of sexual assault by several women, and he has even bragged about it. I have never heard her say he should resign.

She’s a bully who chose to make a stand against someone she knew would not retaliate against her.

[Trumpocalypse]

243. Really?

“President Trump has committed assault, according to these women, and those are very credible allegations of misconduct and criminal activity, and he should be fully investigated and he should resign,” Gillibrand said on CNN. “These allegations are credible; they are numerous. I've heard these women's testimony, and many of them are heartbreaking.”

She joined Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in calling for Trump's resignation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/12/12/trump-sends-sexually-suggestive-and-demeaning-tweet-about-gillibrand/?utm_term=.e8d56aaf2ef2

https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/sen-gillibrand-to-consider-2020-says-trump-should-resign-1369204291581

[Bluepinky]

246. Okay, glad to hear this, but I still think she was wrong to pick on Al Franken.

Franken should have been allowed to have the accusations investigated.

[Trumpocalypse]

247. She and over 30 other Senators

And do you really think the republicans on the ethics committee would have given Franken a fair hearing.

[Bluepinky]

256. That wasn't her judgement to make. He asked for an investigation

and the accusations should have been investigated.

The ethics committee also includes Democrats. Gillibrand shouldn’t have disallowed an investigation because the Republicans on the committee might have been unfair. Franken was disrespected by her and the other Senators who asked him to resign; as the ringleader of this debacle, Gillibrand is most at fault. In my opinion, she treated a colleague very unfairly.

[Trumpocalypse]

257. She and over 30 others Senators

She was one of many. Warren, Sanders, Harris and Booker are not just blind followers. It is unfair to single out one and give all the others a pass.

Also, an ethics committee investigation is not a determination of guilt or innocence. It’s a finding if Congressional ethics rules were violated. Plus the republicans on the ethics committee would have made it a circus to humiliate Franken and paint any democrat who defeated him as a hypocrite.

[Bluepinky]

258. I guess we'll never know how the investigation would have gone, since he wasn't allowed one.

The investigation may have shown that some or all of the accusations against Franken were bogus. And I singled out Gillibrand as being the first to condemn Franken and ask for his resignation. She showed really poor judgement, worse than the others because she led the charge.

[Trumpocalypse]

259. An ethics committee investigation is

is not a determination of guilt or innocence. So regardless of what happened, if it had gone forward it would never have been the exoneration of Franken that you’re envisioning.

Gillibrand was first by minutes almost every other Democrat called for Franken’s resignation the same morning. It was obviously a highly coordinated group effort. Singling out Gillibrand to demonize is wrong and sexist. And why wouldn’t it be worse for the others if they were just blind followers of an unfair lynching?

[47of74]

226. I will not support her in the primaries

After what she did to Franken she can get lost.

[Bayard]

228. Wasting her time and money

Al Franken was 10 times the leader she is, and no one is going to forgive her for what she did to him.

[elfin]

252. NOOO! Just Stoppit. Just Stoppit. No More Posts about KG.

Cease and Desist. Riles up the Board and more important riles up ME. Done done done.

[grantcart]

260. Well it did get 4 recs lol