Via Brent Scher, who notes that this isn’t the first time a politician has used this line but it *may* be the first time a politician has used it with all seriousness. Consider it another reminder that Gillibrand really is among the worst the Democrats have to offer in 2020. It’s not just that she’s a panderer of unusual shamelessness, it’s that she’s not good at it. She’s as transparent as Saran Wrap.
A Twitter pal, watching this, said that if she’s the nominee Trump will spend most of the campaign making fun of her. Probably, and it’ll be effective precisely because her pandering is so hackish and obvious. She’s going to run as a hybrid Hillary/Bernie, combining the former’s “deal me in” shtick with the latter’s socialist policies. She’ll come off as a pale imitation of both, with progressives only too aware that her “principles” can shift at a moment’s notice because they have shifted at a moment’s notice. She’d sell them out as president without a second thought if someone convinced her that it would improve her job security.
Luckily for them, Kamala Harris will be the nominee in 2020. This Lehman zinger will make a fine applause line in Gillibrand’s inevitably underwhelming convention speech, though. Exit question via Dan McLaughlin, taking Gillibrand more seriously than anyone should: If it’s true, as she implies in the clip, that having more women in charge is necessarily a good thing, why has she voted no on virtually every woman nominated by Trump? You know why.