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 | 01/26/2009 10:20 am

Critics Attack Ahead of Eager Gillibrand's Senate Start

By The Staff at wowOwow.com
© AP

Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand says she’s ready to hit the ground running as the next senator from New York.

Gillibrand, who is expected to be sworn in Tuesday, met with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, New York Gov. David Paterson and senior New York Sen. Chuck Schumer Sunday. The second-term congresswoman, who worked on Clinton’s 2000 Senate campaign, said Clinton "has always been a mentor of mine and someone I’ve always admired." The women talked foreign policy and the economy, and Clinton gave her tips on how to be an effective senator. Gillibrand knows she has some big shoes to fill, and despite being criticized by more liberal Democrats for being more center on issues such as gun control (she’s for protecting hunters’ rights – a more popular stance upstate, where she’s from), she said there’s "enormous space for common ground."

While Gillibrand, 42, is relishing her new role, critics like Long Island Rep. Carolyn McCarthy are already mounting their 2010 primary challenge against her. Rep. Peter King, R-NY, who called her selection a "fraud" and "backroom deal," said he’s "seriously considering" a Senate run against Gillibrand in 2010 (he also would have run against Caroline Kennedy). Essentially, many more left-leaning downstate New York politicians seem to think that the Senate should be filled with someone like them, and not more representatives of the rest of New York state. Newsday reports that there are even unconfirmed reports among Democratic operatives that former Gov. George Pataki could seek to make a political comeback by challenging Gillibrand for the Senate seat next year.

Politico elaborates on reports that congressional Democrats, many of whom wanted the Senate seat, are angry over what they see as Gillibrand’s excessive ambition. The lawmaker apparently ticked off some of her colleagues by trying to leapfrog up the seniority ladder in late 2008 to try to take a vacant seat on the Ways and Means Committee. "She’s smart and capable, but she’s rubbed people the wrong the way," said one New York City Democrat.

If her too-high ambition is the only big fault opponents can come up, we encourage them to find something else to do. And we have to wonder: If she were a man, would her ambition be criticized like this? We think not.  

Click here to read wOw’s "6 Things to Know About Kirsten Gillibrand."

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

DeBúrca obj
Rep. Peter King, R-NY, who called her selection a “fraud” and “backroom deal,”… guess it’s not just Illinois eh? We’re just more colorful about it!
By DeBúrca obj on 01/26/2009 10:38 am
Belinda Joy
I agree with the staff of wOw on this one, if indeed the biggest complaint they can levy against her is her “too-high ambition” that is pretty weak and won’t fly. Especially given the fact the same was said about now President Obama, who likewise leap-frogged many in his run for the White House. Many argued he hadn’t paid his dues so to speak. My arguments against her appointment have to do primarily with her stand on gun control and the fact that many of her votes run counter to what Obama will attempt to achieve. I can see her being an impediment.
By Belinda Joy on 01/26/2009 10:43 am
Patty E
I am not all that informed about her stance on most things—-but when I compare her to someone powerful…ie Hillary…who has the clout to affect outcomes on an issue, this ‘new infant senator’, has none, in the bigger picture. She may be menacing—-but my feeling is that most will step over her, rather than trip over her….
By Patty E on 01/26/2009 10:59 am
Patty E
I totally agree with your last paragraph! I do not live in New York, so my thoughts could be looked at as ‘innocent’, or perhaps that I know enough to be dangerous, but not enough to ‘know’….so with the afore mentioned disclaimer, I know take opportunity to provide an opinion! ha! It has been my experience that ALL ‘politicians’ are ‘excessively ambitious’…not just women politicians. If they were NOT eager to be elected, or picked, they would not offer themselves to begin with! AND, as the one who was not picked, they would not be fervently having some temper tantrum, BECAUSE they were not picked! As I read, the statement regarding downstate New York wanting more representation—the first thing that crossed my brain, was the act that Downstate NY, ie NYC, already runs the rest of the state! Those Corporations, Wall Street, ‘control’ the whole WORLD! NYC has more money, and more power, than any other city in America! So what’s the gripe about having upstate represented, to try and even things out? I just don;t get the argument for downstate!!
By Patty E on 01/26/2009 10:54 am
gulliver fourmyle
ever been to China? D.C., NYC’s days are over, globally—-bush/greenspan made this happen—-now, to recover former fiscal status? global rule? fat chance——
By gulliver fourmyle on 01/27/2009 12:20 am
f p
Well she does have some issues attending her and there were possibly better candidates out there but Paterson handled it very badly—and what does he get out of the deal? IMO a lot—an potent ally in upstate NY and a conservative at that.
By f p on 01/26/2009 10:55 am
Z ****
I keep wondering what exactly does the “correct” amount of ambition look like for a woman?
By Z **** on 01/26/2009 10:57 am
Brooklyn Gal
I had to take exception with Maureen Dowd’s column on Sunday. For some reason she has negative feelings about “ambitious” women and again took a swipe against Hillary. She quoted many in the NY Congressional delegation as saying it was not Gillibrand’s time. Well, they said the same thing to Obama when Hillary was running. Chuck Schumer who had a lot to do with the Gillibrand selection wanted someone who would no longer upstage him. Well, given Gillibrand’s reputation, and the fact that he has no charisma, he will be easily upstaged. She is the new girl, the one we all have questions about. Is she a Dem or not? She has voted over 90% with the Dems, but it’s that 10% that have people worried. There is nothing wrong with ambition if you are smart and qualified, and Gillibrand seems to have both qualities. She will be a savvy pol too because now she represents the whole state and not one particular district and has to evolve in her ideas about guns and how it effects us Downstaters. She does not go around field dressing subway rats, but has been involved in both national and international issues during her tenure as a member of Congress. (Armed Services/Terrorism). I have to hope she will do well by New York because she is my senator now. In the meantime, I will support any Dem interested in taking Paterson’s place.
By Brooklyn Gal on 01/26/2009 11:32 am
Lucinda Herbert
Brooklyn, I often enjoy Maureen Dowd’s columns, but I have to disagree with her this time around. Whose time it most certainly is not is Caroline Kennedy, whom Maureen Dowd favors. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/opinion/07dowd.html
By Lucinda Herbert on 01/26/2009 10:39 pm
sibelle daubigne
Gillibrand is perfect for NY! A centrist, young, intelligent and ambitious! We are so lucky not to have a Kennedy!
By sibelle daubigne on 01/26/2009 12:46 pm
Ms. Dee
Whatever questions remain, we won’t have answers until 2010. But I hope Paterson goes away. He’s been a real dunderhead throughout this process.
By Ms. Dee on 01/26/2009 2:39 pm
Roger from Ohio
Politico elaborates on reports that congressional Democrats, many of whom wanted the Senate seat, are angry over what they see as Gillibrand’s excessive ambition…………………..If she were a man, would her ambition be criticized like this? We think not. So what they are saying is……. These other Democrats that didnt get the nomination are upset because of “Gillibrand’s excessive ambition” If they are already elected….. dont they have just as much ambition? Are we supposed to believe that these “elected officials” are just a group of shrinking violets? come on….. get a real argument or just let it go…. she won …. accept it.
By Roger from Ohio on 01/26/2009 3:40 pm
alex harvey
She is insignificant.
By alex harvey on 01/26/2009 4:15 pm
Bonnie Oliver
It is my understanding that Gillibrand voted “no” on the first stimulus package last Autumn. I like her already. She has courage and brains.
By Bonnie Oliver on 01/26/2009 7:58 pm
Mary An Mc
I am from upstate NY, the district next to the 20th, and to call Kirsten Gillibrand insignificant is not to know anything about NY politics outside of NYC. She won an overwhelmingly republican gerrymandered district. She is pretty much universally liked in her district because even if you do not agree with her on all the issues her willingness to hear her constituents is incredible. Her gun control stance is largely because of where she is from. She is from a hunting district and guns are part of the control. NYC politicians want to keep control for themselves, it has always been this way. A tough, smart, ambitious and political connected upstater scares the hell out of NYC politicions. For Upstaters finally having someone from their area is welcome. Actually having a senator that is actually from NY is kind of different for New Yorkers. Kirsten Gillibrand will be a great senator not only for NY but for the country as a whole.
By Mary An Mc on 01/27/2009 10:45 pm