Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Politics | 01/23/2009 2:00 am

6 Things to Know About Kirsten Gillibrand

A surprise selection for Hillary Clinton’s former Senate seat
By Deborah Barrow, Editor-in-Chief

1. Gillibrand is much-celebrated among the urbane and liberal country folk along the swankier weekender districts of the Hudson Valley for her defeat of the four-term Republican John Sweeney in a traditionally conservative district.

2. She worked up until the day she gave birth to her second son in May, 2008, earning her a standing ovation on the floor of the House. Only six women have given birth while serving in the U.S. Congress.

3. She is a member of the Congressional Blue Dog Democrats, a coalition of moderate and conservative-leaning Dems able to wrest seats away from Republicans in districts long under conservative control.

4. She was one of the 99 House Democrats to vote against the $700 billion bailout of the banks, also known as the much-maligned TARP, handing a stunning defeat to Nancy Pelosi on the issue. She maintained her no vote on the second bailout bill that ultimately passed, calling it "fundamentally flawed."

5. She opposes gun control. In a district where the deer are so invasive that they practically sleep on your patio at night, if you want to run, you gotta be pro-gun.

6.  She is considered a friend of the family farmer, and a strong voice against the agribusiness-control of the Committee on Agriculture on which she serves.

74 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

%$#@* !@&*^!!
Oh sheesh….no agribusiness control? No gun control? Thanks ever so much Gov Patterson. Cuomo would have been great for the country, but not poltically expedient for Patterson.
By %$#@* !@&*^!! on 01/23/2009 4:58 am
rocky rocky
I’m not familiar with the nomenclature and nuances of farming politics, so I don’t understand what’s wrong with being against “agribusiness control.” Isn’t that being against big business corporate farming and for small family owned farmers? Or does it mean she’s against the control of corporate farming? I am confused!!
By rocky rocky on 01/23/2009 12:01 pm
EKA -
Read again … She is strong AGAINST agri-business control of the Agraculture Committee ! That’s a GOOD thing !
By EKA - on 01/23/2009 6:29 pm
rocky rocky
Still befuddled. But thanks, EKA. If you say it’s a good thing, then it must be so.
By rocky rocky on 01/23/2009 9:36 pm
Ro H
rocky rocky, Lol, Dear “Still befuddled” it only means the agency cannot control its self, my dear… grin
By Ro H on 01/25/2009 11:13 pm
Lee Harrison
Something I heard on CNN early this morning indicated she’s close to HRC…I think she worked on her campaign. (I was half asleep, so don’t take this as fact.) Maybe she’s Hill’s choice?
By Lee Harrison on 01/23/2009 5:39 am
Lee Harrison
I just heard on Morning Edition that she was recruited by Rom Emmanuel to run for the Congressional seat she now holds. Tidy little package, no?
By Lee Harrison on 01/23/2009 7:52 am
caj p
That’s all we need another gun toting person, don’t we have enough trouble in this country with guns without this lady who believes in no restrictions joining the fray. I prefer the 2nd amendment were taken out of the Constitution, that was written years ago in another time and nothing is set in stone that it can’t be changed if for the better. That piece of paper makes everyone obsessed with having to own a gun but look at the deaths caused daily across this country through guns ownership…no amount of checking someone or this notion of a waiting period is going to stop anyone if they are intent on killing someone as lots of crimes are committed in the heat of the moment and that person may have had a clean record who used the gun. Guns are a blot in this country and if I had my way I’d ban them all.
By caj p on 01/23/2009 8:27 am
Robert Stephens
I don’t recall evidence being presented that she is a “gun toting” person; as far as I’m aware, one does not have to “tote” a gun to be against gun control (that happens to apply to me). While we’re taking the 2nd amendment out, why stop there? After all, that whole thing about establishing a state religion - well, we’d all be better off if we were all part of the same church and one big happy family, right? Let’s do away with the 1st amendment … … oh, and since we have so much problem with crime and gun ‘toters,’ let’s do away with amendment 4 too, right? After all, that whole protection against search and seizures is archaic and “written for another time” when crime wasn’t such a problem. Yeah - you’re completely right.
By Robert Stephens on 01/23/2009 9:39 am
caj p
Oh, I knew I would be getting a response from that….no need to get your knickers in a twist here, you obviously believe in this notion of right to bare arms and I don’t it’s a simple as that!!! So giving me all this spiel changes my mind not one jot.
By caj p on 01/23/2009 10:12 am
Robert Stephens
Never thought it would. I was merely trying to point out your ill-considered ‘logic’ (my opinion). TTFN
By Robert Stephens on 01/23/2009 10:22 am
caj p
Is it ill considered because it doesn’t gel with yours…apparently so!!
By caj p on 01/23/2009 10:51 am
Robert Stephens
You’re being a touch overly defensive I do believe. I clearly said that it was MY opinion. And I’m entitled to that the last time I checked. Apparently someone simply disagreeing with you (and daring to post - horrors!) is just a little much though, huh? The other poster is right. Get past emotion and what you ‘feel’ and really check facts. But perhaps you have - and if you can honestly answer to yourself that you have, I’m rational enough to say, “So sorry,” and move on. Heheheh.
By Robert Stephens on 01/23/2009 11:22 am
caj p
I do disagree with you completely and that is my right to do so as well…you use the phrase get past emotion and check the facts, all I said was the 2nd amendment could be changed as it’s not set in stone and that I don’t believe in owning guns. So I have nothing to be sorry about as much as you try to defend your position on owning guns, I defend my position on not owning them its a simple as that. We disagree entirely so move on.
By caj p on 01/25/2009 8:41 am
Celia S
I was pretty indifferent about guns for years. Well basically my whole life. I have two friends that convinced me to at least be objective. They printed out a file from gunfacts.info and try as I might I have checked a great deal of their sources, admittedly not all of them. I’m still not someone that wants to carry a gun but the facts are that my two friends changed my mind. And yes they’re both female. ;-)
By Celia S on 01/23/2009 10:20 am