SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
kirsten gillibrand
'Don't Sabotage Mamdani': 30,000+ Petitioners Urge Gillibrand to Get Behind Progressive NYC Mayoral Candidate
"Democratic leaders love to talk about unity—until a progressive wins," said one prominent backer.
Jul 09, 2025
Supporters of progressive New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani are putting pressure on reluctant centrist Democrats to fall in line and back his candidacy after he scored an upset win in last month's Democratic primary.
Progressive advocacy organization Our Revolution has gathered more than 30,000 signatures in a petition urging the Democratic political establishment to not sabotage Mamdani's candidacy by backing independent candidates such as incumbent Mayor Eric Adams or former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.
The organization said Wednesday that it attempted to deliver the petition to the Manhattan offices of Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), who is one of many big-name Democrats in the state who have yet to back Mamdani's general election candidacy, but was denied access to the building by security.
"After multiple calls to both the NYC and D.C. offices, staff refused to accept the petition in person and directed organizers to submit it online—despite the urgent, NYC-specific nature of the issue," Our Revolution claimed.
The event was organized to draw attention to the double standard and disconnect between party leadership and grassroots voters, especially in races where big money interests—some with ties to the Democratic Party machinery and others without—work behind the scenes to push out progressives.
"Democratic leaders love to talk about unity—until a progressive wins," said Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of Our Revolution. "Every cycle, we're told to fall in line for the good of the party. Well, Zohran Mamdani is the nominee—and yet the establishment's silence is deafening. It's time for party leaders to live up to their own standards and stand with Zohran against these billionaire-funded attempts to undo the will of the voters."
The action was first reported by Politico, which also reports that a dozen chapters of progressive organizing group Indivisible are writing letters to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul to urge them to get behind Mamdani.
"The party should be celebrating and analyzing this win as we prepare for the fight of our political lives in 2026," wrote Indivisible signatories. "At a time when Democrats have struggled to connect with voters and build credibility, supporting and learning from Mr. Mamdani's playbook is paramount."
Additionally, Politico reports that Jasmine Gripper, the co-director of the New York Working Families Party, is also urging the state's Democratic leadership to put aside their reservations and back the party's nominee. Gripper noted that Mamdani has won the endorsements of his fellow New York state assemblymembers from across the political spectrum, which should ease their concerns that his candidacy is out of the mainstream.
"The Mamdani tent is big enough for everyone," Gripper said. "Any leader who is serious about building a base of energized voters and wins would be smart to join us."
A poll released by political consulting firm Slingshot Strategies on Wednesday shows that Mamdani currently leads among voters, although that advantage could shrink should either Adams or Cuomo drop out of the race to endorse the other's candidacy.
Overall, the poll showed Mamdani scoring 35% of the vote, compared to 25% for Cuomo, 14% for Republican Curtis Sliwa, and just 11% for Adams. Mamdani also held the highest net favorability of the major candidates at +4 percentage points, whereas Cuomo was underwater by 2 percentage points and Adams had a net favorability of -34 percentage points.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why Mamdani and Other US Muslims Now Refuse to Play the Condemnation Game
The NYC mayoral candidate and other Muslim Americans should no longer be expected to condemn words that we have never used.
Jul 06, 2025
You must condemn the phrase "globalize the intifada."
That's the demand that some pro-Israel politicians, reporters, organizations, and activists keep making of Zohran Mamdani, New York City's presumptive Democratic nominee for mayor.
The manufactured controversy surrounding Mamdani and this phrase began days before the June 24 election, when a radio host asked Mamdani for his thoughts about unnamed pro-Palestinian activists who supposedly use such language.
For decades, Muslims in America have been held to a ridiculous, bigoted double standard which demands that we condemn violence that we had nothing to do with and renounce comments that we have never made.
Instead of outright condemning the phrase, Mamdani said, "I know people for whom those things mean very different things." He said that some who say it are trying to express a "desperate desire for equality and equal rights in standing up for Palestinian human rights,” and noted that the U.S. Holocaust Museum had used the word "intifada” in Arabic-language descriptions of the 1944 Warsaw Uprising against Nazi Germany.
Former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and other Mamdani opponents seized on his nuanced response, embellished and exaggerated what he said, and loudly condemned him. By the time the dust settled, members of the public and even prominent politicians like Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) were claiming that Mamdani himself had actually used the phrase. He hadn't.
In fact, no member of his campaign staff had ever used the phrase or even said "intifada," an Arabic word often translated as revolution or uprising that has been used to describe the largely peaceful Arab Spring protests and that was indeed used by the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum until it quietly dropped the phrase.
Yet, even after Mamdani's stunning victory in the Democratic mayoral primary, reporters and some politicians keep demanding that Mamdani condemn the phrase.
During an interview with "Meet the Press” on Sunday, June 29, Mamdani was repeatedly asked why he has declined to do so.
This time, Mamdani said it was not a phrase he would use and that he understood concerns about it, but that he did not want to police speech as the mayor of New York or legitimize President Donald Trump's efforts to deport activists based solely on their pro-Palestine speech.
In other words, Mamdani doesn't want to end up as an evidentiary footnote in a Justice Department deportation filing against a student protester or set a precedent that makes him responsible for condemning every problematic chant shouted at a pro-Palestine rally over the next four years.
Fair enough. But there's another, even more important reason Mamdani shouldn't have to condemn the phrase: Put simply, no one would ask him to do so in the first place if he was not a Muslim.
Think about it. There are plenty of other politicians opposed to the genocide and critical of the Israeli government, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-N.Y.) and former Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.).
Has anyone ever asked them to condemn the phrase "globalize the intifada?” Of course not. Why should they have to answer for a phrase they have never used, that none of their staffers have ever used, and that hardly anyone else ever uses?
What's the difference with Mamdani? He's a Muslim in America, and for decades, Muslims in America have been held to a ridiculous, bigoted double standard which demands that we condemn violence that we had nothing to do with and renounce comments that we have never made.
The irony is that Muslims actually have voluntarily and consistently spoken out against acts of unjust violence committed by Muslim extremists so that Americans unfamiliar with Islam understand that such violence does not represent the faith. However, speaking out voluntarily is different from being forced to do so as a condition for participation in American public life.
Only Muslims face this heightened double standard. When's the last time someone asked Sen. Gillibrand—a steadfast supporter of the Israeli government who has voted to fund its genocide—what she thinks of the pro-Israel protesters who recently chanted racist anti-Arab and anti-Muslim slogans while chasing a woman they misidentified as a Palestinian down the streets of New York City
Better yet, when's the last time someone asked former Gov. Cuomo—who literally joined the defense team of indicted war criminal Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—whether he condemns the various racist, genocidal statements that Netanyahu and his hand-picked government ministers have made?
To be clear, there are plenty of reasons why most pro-Palestine activists would not use the phrase "globalize the intifada.” The phrase can signify peaceful civil disobedience to one group of people and violent uprising to another group of people. The debate about the phrase distracts from the struggle against the genocide. Most importantly, there is no pressing need to use such a phrase. That's why, again, no prominent leaders in the Palestinian freedom movement have ever said it.
The only people who should have to answer for the phrase "globalize the intifada" are the people who supposedly use it, whoever they are. Mamdani and other Muslim Americans should no longer be expected to condemn words that we have never used, especially while politicians critical of him can vote to fund the Israeli government's genocide without being forced to constantly answer for its crimes.
When he was first asked about "globalize the intifada," Zohran Mamdani could have done what many other Muslim Americans have done over the past 25 years: condemn something he never said, and then move on.
By refusing to play the condemnation game this time and still winning the Democratic primary, he may have helped free Muslims in political life from a double standard that has haunted them for decades.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senators Demand Answers About 'Reckless' Trump Admin Use of AI Social Security Chatbot
Artificial intelligence systems, the four senators argue, "represent a troubling pattern that if continued, would significantly impede Americans' ability" to access their benefits.
Jul 01, 2025
Four U.S. senators—three Democrats and Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders—demanded answers Tuesday from the Trump administration about its "reckless rollout" of artificial intelligence chatbot technology into phone systems "that have blocked people from accessing their earned Social Security benefits."
"These AI programs, which the agency deployed with little consultation with Congress, advocates, or other key stakeholders, appear to have been developed in haste and represent a troubling pattern that if continued, would significantly impede Americans' ability to access their Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits," the senators said in a letter to Social Security Administration (SSA) Commissioner Frank Bisignano.
While Sanders, Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (Ore.), and Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.) acknowledged that "AI can be a helpful tool to simplify some workloads," they contended that artificial intelligence "is not a panacea for all challenges facing SSA."
The letter continues:
SSA is entrusted with ensuring accurate and timely payment of mtore than $1 trillion in Social Security and SSI benefit payments to over 73 million seniors, individuals with disabilities, and their families each year. Considering the agency's important mission, it is critical that SSA is responsibly deploying any technology system, including AI. For example, whether incorporating newer technology like generative AI to improve customer experience and increase efficiency or leveraging predictive AI to provide disability examiners support in the disability determination process, it is critical that SSA meaningfully engage stakeholders, including its customers and employees, the advocacy community, and members of Congress, throughout the entire process to avoid harm to claimants and beneficiaries.
"The agency's hasty AI rollouts on its national 1-800 number phone system and the phone system for its 1,200 field offices, which resulted in significant impediments for Americans simply trying to access their earned benefits, demonstrate our concern," the senators wrote. "In April, SSA announced it would be deploying an anti-fraud AI algorithm to verify the identity of callers seeking to file for benefits on its national 1-800 number, arguing—without providing any evidence—that its telephone service was rife with fraud."
"However," the lawmakers noted, "the proposal was scrapped shortly after implementation after the system found it identified two claims out of over 110,000 as potentially fraudulent. Moreover, the new program slowed claim processing by 25% and led to a 'degradation of public service.'"
The senators are asking Bisignano to:
- Provide a detailed description of the new AI-based chatbot, including how it determines whether it has successfully answered a caller's questions before hanging up;
- Describe which metrics is SSA using to determine whether this AI-based chatbot is successful at improving service delivery at the national 1-800 number;
- Explain the metrics SSA used to evaluate the successes or challenges of this AI-based chatbot before rolling it out nationwide to field offices;
- Disclose which stakeholders, especially those who represent beneficiaries and employees, were consulted pre- and post-deployment of this AI-based chatbot;
- Explain whether SSA is planning to procure, develop, or implement any new AI systems this year; and
- If the answer to the above question is yes, list and provide a detailed description of these AI systems.
The AI rollout is part of Bisignano's "technology agenda" to boost productivity at SSA amid staffing and other cuts implemented by the Trump administration and its Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. In February, SSA announced its intent to fire 7,000 workers, or about 12% of its historically low staff.
Many SSA staffers also resigned, including nearly half of the agency's senior executives. This has adversely affected SSA beneficiaries. An analysis published last week by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities revealed that one SSA staff member must now serve 1,480 beneficiaries—over three times as many as in 1967.
Last week, Warren sent a letter to Bisignano—who one advocacy group described as "a Wall Street CEO with a long history of slashing the companies he runs to the bone"—accusing him of misleading the public about longer beneficiary wait times resulting from the Trump administration and DOGE taking a "chainsaw to Social Security."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular