It’s long been a cornerstone of Hillary Clinton’s branding that she’s a woman seeking power in a man’s world. From Madeleine Albright’s “special place in hell” speech to the pages of Cosmopolitan to the 2016 primary debates, Clinton and her associates have often presented female identity as inherently progressive in an elected official.



“There are plenty of reasons why we need more women in office. That’s true whether you’re a Democrat, a Republican, or an independent,” she wrote in Cosmo. The most recent version of candidate Clinton took great pains to present herself as a progressive as well, at least when speaking to the general public. Imagine my shock, then, when she emerged from a period of relative dormancy to endorse a conservative man over a liberal woman: Clinton has backed the incumbent Andrew M Cuomo over his challenger Cynthia Nixon in New York’s Democratic gubernatorial primary.

While progressives and leftists alike have long known Clinton – and the political establishment she represents – to deploy the “representation” card in only the most cynical and selective of ways, this case is particularly galling. In addition to being a man, Cuomo is a machine politician who talks like a progressive Democrat but acts like a moderate Republican.



His crimes include underfunding the MTA, attacking public education via charter schools, and protecting his friends in the real estate business from subpoenas. After creating an “independent” commission to investigate corruption, he blocked it from investigating his own office and subsequently

disbanded it.



His former top aide, Joseph Percoco, was convicted on three corruption charges in March. Up until Nixon’s challenge pressured him into ending their deal, he allowed the Independent Democratic Conference (IDC) to swing control of the state senate to the Republicans, stymying efforts to pass single-payer healthcare, fully fund education, and cement New York as a sanctuary state. (It recently dissolved, but this is probably just a hiatus; Cuomo convinced the IDC to temporarily disband in 2014 when he faced a primary challenge from Zephyr Teachout, too.) Cuomo is drowning in corporate money; Nixon has vowed to accept none. Is this what Clinton’s Pac, Onward Together, was talking about when it promised to “advance progressive values”?

Cynthia Nixon announces candidacy for New York governor Read more

Clinton’s endorsement of Cuomo might make sense if Nixon’s politics were way out of line with her own currently professed views, but they’re not. With an emphasis on racial justice, education, and raising taxes on the wealthy to fund basic services (not the least of which is our crumbling subway system), Nixon’s program sits firmly within the realm of left-liberal reform and has much in common with the platform Clinton ran on in 2016. Nixon even supported Clinton over Senator Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary. If elected, she would be the first female governor of New York, as well as the first openly LGBT New York governor. If we are to take Clinton at her word, it’s hard to think of a better candidate for her to throw her support behind.

The picture gets clearer when you look at Clinton’s history with Cuomo, who served as housing secretary in her husband’s administration and campaigned for her in the 2016 primary and general elections. Politico ran a whole five-part series on the relationship between the Clinton and Cuomo dynasties. It’s almost like taking care of your friends is more important than getting more women into office.

Of course, it’s possible Clinton’s name has become so toxic her opposition will actually help Nixon, in which case, progressives should thank her. Intentionally or not, opposition from such unpopular establishment figures as Clinton and Christine Quinn will only help the activist and Sex and the City actor make a case for herself as the reformer Albany needs.