Is the same as the trouble with Hillary Clinton, quite accidentally and for no particular other reason:
The larger question about Gillibrand, though, is whether she is too transparently opportunistic to be a viable candidate after the rejection of another New York politician criticized for basing her positions on supposedly canny calculations rather than on from-the-gut convictions.
That is Ciro Scotti at the Daily Beast.
Criticizing politicians for their policies is to be recommended. Criticizing politicians a specific way only because they are women is problematic. For instance, how often have you seen a male politician criticized for selfishness? Yet here are a few more quotes about Gillibrand:
For Gillibrand, nearly every move seems to be a self-serving playing of the angles. While it’s not surprising to see a politician behave this way, Gillibrand seems to be an especially egregious practitioner of the finger-in-the-wind politics that so many voters can no longer abide.
...
But one thing seems clear: Those denunciations and their timing were all designed to be right for Kirsten Gillibrand.
So what do we have here? Gillibrand is selfish. Gillibrand is not authentic ("canny calculations rather than from-the-gut convictions"). Gillibrand is a weather vane who changes her policies based on what works for her.
When you put all those together it's hard to think of a similar article about a male politician, but several about Hillary Clinton. As Madeleine Aggeler points out at the Cut:
All politicians are opportunistic; it’s practically a job requirement. But Scotti falls back on the same old, tired, lizard-brained and misogynistic argument that people used against Hillary Clinton: That ambitious women are off-putting.The sample size is yet too small, but I'm collecting information to see if female politicians, when turning into "too" powerful, get the Hillarization treatment, and what that treatment might consist of. There is a pattern.