RUTHFULLY YOURS

New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has a problem. She wants to be the Democratic nominee for President in 2020. But she’s white.

Not only is Gillibrand white, but she’s extremely white. She’s so white that even Hillary Clinton looks almost Hispanic by comparison.

That’s not an asset in a competitive Democratic primary. It used to be that being a woman was sufficiently virtuous. No longer. Gillibrand has to compete against candidates from other identity groups. Cory Booker is a minority, Kamala Harris is a minority, and even though Elizabeth Warren isn’t a minority, she does play one on TV.

So Gillibrand is tacking hard left to compensate. She was formerly a moderately conservative Democratic congresswoman from upstate New York, until she was appointed to a vacant Senate Seat by the then-governor, David Paterson, a blind black adulterous former cocaine user  whose resume full of multiple identity group memberships dazzled New Yorkers throughout the state.

Gillibrand, who used to brag about keeping a gun under her bed and advocated deporting illegal aliens and making English the official language of America, now sings to a very different tune. When she got elected to the Senate she saw she got a lot of media attention when she repeatedly told her “fat shaming story”, her claim that then Senator Daniel Inouye allegedly told her “Don’t lose too much weight now. I like my girls chubby!”

After that, Gillibrand latched on to every offense, real and perceived, against women in the non-Islamic world to attract the attention of the media. And it worked, for a while, to raise her profile.

But as the status of women as a virtue group has declined, and the status of minority and other identity groups have risen in the Democratic Party, Gillibrand has had to up her game.

The New York Times, of all places, wrote a remarkable piece cataloging Gillibrand’s rapid evolution from moderate to hard-left. It’s hard to think of a reason they would publish such a damaging piece about her, except perhaps that they too, like other Democratic core groups, find Gillibrand’s uncompromising whiteness to be disqualifying for a presidential nominee.

So here’s what Gillibrand stands for now:

1) She wants to impose additional taxes on people who buy stocks. Why? Because, as any bank robber will tell you, that’s where the money is.

2) She wants to guarantee a government job for every citizen. Think of millions of Americans, doing nothing of consequence, and being paid very handsomely for it. And then think of who they will support for President in the following election.

3) Gillibrand wants the financially debt-ridden Postal Service to open a bank in every branch. A federally financed and run bank. What could go wrong?

4) She wants to legalize marijuana, probably to improve productivity and job satisfaction for those in #2 above.

5) Gillibrand promises to reject all corporate PAC money; the days of Gillibrand accepting five million dollars in corporate donations are officially over.

6) She promises “Medicare for all”, and plans to expand the program before it becomes insolvent.

7) Gillibrand wants to abolish ICE. Everyone from all over the world can come into the country, get a government job (see #2 above), get a government loan (see #3 above), get some weed (see #4 above) get free medical care (#6 above) and vote in elections as soon as they can pass the driving test at the local Department of Motor Vehicles (or maybe there will be exemptions for that as well).

Can Gillibrand’s hard left turn overcome her naturally white disposition? Democrats can get the hard left platform already, in addition to shades of Obama if they turn to Cory Booker or Kamala Harris.

Exit question:

1) Could Gillibrand be more competitive if she finds some remote Hispanic or African-American in her distant family tree, or join another identity group like lesbians or “trangendered men”?