Another contemporary infant-toting, infant-neglecting female politician in the Sarah Palin mold

Rep. Kirsten Gllibrand, selected by Gov. Paterson for the U.S. Senate seat, is a one term congresswoman and now a female U.S. senator with a six month old baby. She’s applauded for working in the House of Representatives right up to the moment she gave birth. I hate feminism. I hate female “equality.”

Ms. Gillibrand, who lives near Hudson, N.Y., just outside of Albany, with her husband, Jonathan Gillibrand, a financial consultant, and their sons, Theodore, who is 5, and Henry, who is 6 months old. (Ms. Gillibrand received a standing ovation on the floor of the House from her colleagues for working right up to the day she gave birth to Henry.)

Ms. Gillibrand, who had never held public office, won her seat in 2006 against great odds, defeating a four-term Republican incumbent in a race that turned intense and nasty in its final days.

- end of initial entry -

Howard Sutherland writes:

Two more neglected children. Their father may be on the scene, but—as a father myself, I know a man does not a mother make—children need their mothers!

Howard Sutherland writes:

Just saw that. Kirsten Gillibrand. Here’s a potted bio of her. She’s pretty, young (just 42) and seems to have got her start in politics because her Pa is an Albany lobbyist. Interesting that Kirsten ran as a Democrat, when her father’s cronies seem to be Republicans. I guess in New York there’s not much difference.

She went to Dartmouth in the 1980s. Uh, oh. I hope she wasn’t totally brainwashed by the prevailing Leftism there, but she probably was.

Curiously, given my wish that the Adirondacks get the nod, Gillibrand’s district runs all the way up to Lake Placid (where I lived for four years). Gillibrand herself is from Albany, though. Her district covers a long stretch of the state, from as far north as Essex County down the Hudson as far south as Dutchess County, with a salient to the west running out across the Catskills. So maybe New York’s Forest Preserves will have a friend in the Senate.

David Paterson must have been channeling my Deep Thoughts about the under-representation of Upstate New York. Or maybe, identity politics-style, he was just forced to replace a woman with another woman.

Unless Gillibrand turns out to be an open-borders, unlimited-abortion zealot, this is better than I had hoped for. She’s better looking than Andy Cuomo, that’s for sure.

LA replies:

Not to take away from Kirsten’s looks, but a toad would be better looking than Andrew Cuomo. More to the pont, Gillian is better looking than Caroline K. And I’ll bet she can speak and has a personality as well.

Carol Iannone writes:

You write:

and now a female U.S. senator with a six month old baby. I hate feminism. I hate female “equality.”

Yes, and then there was the idea that since the seat was vacated by a woman it had to be filled not by the best person but by another woman. Tribalism and group think overturning merit and experience and focus on the individual.

Terry Morris writes:

Well, at least they’re not touting her as some kind of a conservative, or are they? That was the most objectionable thing about all the “conservative” praise heaped on Governor Palin to my mind.

Terry Morris writes:

Howard Southerland wrote:

Their father may be on the scene, but—as a father myself, I know a man does not a mother make—children need their mothers!

I agree with Howard 100 percent. But the excerpt states that the father is some kind of a financial consultant, which probably means that the care of the children is doled out to a nanny or some other form of babysitter. And I can tell you as a member of this society that a babysitter, whether it be a nanny of sorts, the public education system, or the television set, does not a mother make.

Laura W. writes:

You wrote:

A female U.S. senator with a six month old baby…. I hate feminism. I hate female “equality.”

People will look back on us years from now and struggle to understand. “Now, wait a second,” they will say. “These women were bright. They were educated. They were not poor. But, they thought they were too smart. They thought they were too smart to raise their own children?!” I imagine professors standing before a room of mystified students, exhausting themselves trying to understand why millions of intelligent and energetic women abandoned the world’s most interesting and important vocation. They will chalk it up to the strangeness, the utter mysteriousness of the inhabitants of the past.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 23, 2009 11:12 AM | Send