There was always some speculation as to why Senator Kirsten Gillibrand decided to try and run for president. There are obvious assets, higher speaking fees, a possible veep slot, or at least a role in the administration. But Gillibrand was marginally liked and barely known in her own state. She had no vision or ideas. And once it was clear that she couldn’t pick up traction, the sensible thing to do would have been to drop out.
So what was driving Senator Gillibrand? If you guessed delusions, collect your winnings.
Ms. Gillibrand said in an interview that she was unsure what the missing piece of her candidacy was. “I don’t know,” she said. “My campaign may well have been ahead of its time.”
Really, do tell?
In what way was her campaign ahead of its time? I don’t think being an unpopular shrill candidate who stands for nothing and whom everyone hates is as far ahead as Gillibrand thinks. They’ve existed throughout American history.
And then there’s the outright contradictory gibberish.
“There’s a false debate in the party right now,” Ms. Gillibrand said in late August. “Either you have to be an uber-progressive who can inspire the base, or you have to be a moderate who wins those red and purple areas. I believe you have to do both. And my candidacy is both.”
Not even Obama would have gotten a pass on that one.
Gillibrand may have left the race, but she hasn’t reckoned with the lack of anything tangible beyond careerism that got her into it.
Leave a Reply