Zohran Mamdani's victory in the New York City mayoral primary has led to a lot of vile reactions from across the political spectrum. That'd be expected from any Republican, but plenty of liberals are willing to go against their own party and attack a Muslim who supports Palestinians. So it was surprising, but not that surprising, to hear a high-ranking Democrat like New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand lose her mind over Mamdani on Thursday's edition of The Brian Lehrer Show.
WNYC host Brian Lehrer began the interview by asking Gillibrand if she would endorse Mamdani in November's general election. "Not today, but I did speak with him yesterday," the senator said. "I congratulated him on his victory, and I raised some issues that, if he does become the mayor, will be very important that we not only work on together, but I raised some concerns that I had."
Lehrer then asked what those issues were, and I bet you could guess one of them. Gillibrand, whose top contributor in donations was AIPAC last year, was concerned about Mamdani's "public statements about Israel that gave me concern, and I raised the issue of public safety, which is really important for New Yorkers." She declined to discuss the details of her conversation with Mamdani.
When pressed about an endorsement, Gillibrand said she votes in Albany, not New York City, claiming she hasn't endorsed mayoral candidates in the past. That answer is bullshit: She endorsed Eric Adams in 2021. The conversation shifted to Donald Trump, but a few minutes later, the topic came back to Mamdani. A caller claimed that the Democratic nominee would target synagogues and "Jewish institutions" if elected as mayor, so Lehrer asked Gillibrand to respond.
"The caller is exactly the New York constituents that I've spoken to that are alarmed," Gillibrand replied. "They are alarmed by past public statements. They are alarmed by past positions, particularly references to global jihad."
You can find the rest of her answer in the transcript, but this part is quite important. "Global jihad" was not part of the news cycle surrounding Mamdani in the final days before the primary. The phrase that elicited so much bad-faith concern was "Globalize the intifada." But for Gillibrand, who makes no mention during this conversation about what Israel is actually doing to Palestinians, any Arabic word is equally frightening. (A spokesperson for the senator said that she "misspoke in that instance.")
It's crucial to listen to the audio, if possible, because you get to hear a person work herself up over a threat that exists entirely in her head. This is the kind of thing that would be better resolved with professional help rather than on the airwaves of New York City public radio. At the 23:30 mark, when Lehrer gets back to the topic of Mamdani and corrects the previous caller, the host clarifies that there is no evidence of Mamdani supporting Hamas or "global jihad," and asks Gillibrand if she knows something the public doesn't. This would have been a great opportunity for her to make clear that she knows the former rapper who grew up in Manhattan, and whose mother directed Kama Sutra, is not part of Hamas, but her anxious fantasies get the better of her. Gillibrand instead chooses to repeat the false claim that Mamdani himself uses the phrase, and implies he constitutes a threat to all Jewish New Yorkers.
From the transcript:
Gillibrand: Again, Brian, I don't have all the data and information, and I've never sat down with Mr. Mamdani. I've asked to have that meeting. I'm going to have that meeting. We will talk through all these things. He can tell me his views of the world, and I can learn them firsthand. I think the reference that I had read was global intifada, specifically, which has very serious meanings that are violent and destructive.
Lehrer: Which he says, and I pressed him on this, on this show on Monday, which he says are not calls for violence because intifada is a much broader term involving all kinds of uprisings and resistance and things like that. I just want to be clear about how at least he defines it, and maybe he needs to be more clear. "I don't mean this. I don't mean that." He did say here that he didn't want to be the word police, even as the mayor of New York if he's elected, but I do also want to be clear that he said he does not support violent intifada. Is that fair?
Gillibrand: Brian, I didn't hear your exchange with him, but if I was speaking to him directly, I would simply say that is not how the words are received. It doesn't matter what meaning you have in your brain. It is not how the word is received. When you use a word like intifada to many Jewish Americans and Jewish New Yorkers, that means you are permissive for violence against Jews. It is a serious word. It is a word that has deep meaning. It has been used for wars across time and violence and destruction and slaughter and murder against the Jews.
It is a harmful, hurtful, inappropriate word for anyone who wants to represent a city as diverse as New York City with 8 million people, and I would be very specific in these words, and I would say you may not use them again if you expect to represent everyone ever again because they are received as hateful and divisive and harmful, and that's it. I appreciate that he told you he didn't mean that, and that's great. That's a great place to start.
Lehrer: I think we also clarify or he was clarifying that he never said "globalize the intifada." He was asked in an interview if he would denounce the phrase "globalize the intifada." Then that led to this kind of conversation that you were just referring to, but that he was never out there saying "globalize the intifada." He was asked about other people who used it. Just to be precise about what happened there, yes?
Gillibrand: As a leader of a city as diverse as New York City, with 8 million people, as the largest Jewish population in the country, he should denounce it. That's it. Period. You can't celebrate it. You can't value it. You can't lift it up. That is the challenge that Jewish New Yorkers have had certainly since Oct. 6—excuse me, Oct. 7. It is exactly what they have felt. It is why Jewish students in our universities have felt unsafe.
It is why Jewish students have felt that their schools did not have their backs and cared about them, or their learning, because the people doing these protests use words that have meanings that are far more violent and horrific than they may have intended. When you hear things like "intifada," when you hear things like "jihad," when you hear "from the river to the sea," it is received as "slaughter the Jews and destroy Israel." Period. It's how it's received.
By the end of this back-and-forth, Gillibrand sounds like she's on the verge of tears, about a phrase that Mamdani discussed and a few other words that he didn't actually say. It's a hell of a lot to project onto the democratic socialist who campaigned on making buses and childcare free, and who has said repeatedly that he would protect all New Yorkers. There is essentially no difference in Gillibrand's answer than there would be from a garden-variety Republican.
Mamdani's win on Tuesday was invigorating for a few reasons. He ran on a platform of inspiring, specific ideas that would help New York City residents with the cost of living. Through ranked-choice voting, he and fellow nominee Brad Lander showed that solidarity is possible and worthwhile. He also caused Andrew Cuomo to eat shit. Aside from all that, though, Mamdani's success will be instructive in the coming months. He's going to draw out the latent bigotry within members of the Democratic Party, who will have to choose between the same racist fear-mongering that has plagued American politics for years, and the vision of the future glimpsed in Mamdani's energetic and organized coalition.
