Charles Barron. (Photo: Getty)

Although almost all of the city's elected officials have stayed mum on this year's mayoral election, especially on the Democratic side of the aisle, two new politicians have already thrown their support behind different candidates this week. Brooklyn Councilman Charles Barron endorsed Comptroller John Liu for the city's top job and Manhattan Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney did the same for Council Speaker Christine Quinn.

"I think he brings energy. I think he brings real commitment to working class families. He's a fighter against Wall Street," Mr. Barron told Politicker before Mr. Liu's Sunday announcement event. "I think he's done good as comptroller to make sure that we got an equitable share of the contracts and pension investments. I think he'll be the best candidate."

Mr. Barron, of course, has said a raft of controversial statements during his tenure in office. So, during Mr. Liu's hang-out in the press van, we asked if the comptroller embraced the support.

"I worked closely with Charles in the City Council," Mr. Liu said after expressing some initial surprise that Mr. Barron had, in fact, offered his endorsement. "The answer is 'yes,' I would happily accept his endorsement."

For her part, Ms. Maloney announced her support for Ms. Quinn during a press conference today.

"I am incredibly proud to endorse Christine Quinn to be New York’s next Mayor," Ms. Maloney wrote in a follow-up email to Ms. Quinn's supporters. "For the past seven years as Speaker, Chris has held the second most powerful job in City government and she’s proven again and again that she’s tough enough to run this city and make the hard choices a Mayor faces every day."

We also asked Mr. Barron, who has had a very contentious relationship with Ms. Quinn, about whether he considered endorsing her.

"Who? Who?" he replied. "Who? I don't know who you're talking about."

Carolyn Maloney

New York City Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney was quite pleased with President Barack Obama's State of the Union address last night, but she's not optimistic about Congress heeding the president's call to to avoid the $85 billion in automatic spending cuts known as the "sequester" that are scheduled to go into effect March 1.

"I love his speech he came out swinging," Ms. Maloney told Politicker about the president's speech last night. 

Ms. Maloney also said "there's no question" President Obama's speech was an indication he will be more aggressive in pushing for his agenda in his second term than he was in his first.

"He sounded very F.D.R. with all his specific programs plans and visions," she said.

One of the central elements of the president's State of the Union address was  a push for Congress to avoid the sequester cuts by coming to a deficit reduction agreement ahead of the deadline. While Republicans have said they want spending cuts to focus on social programs and so-called entitlements, Democrats have focused on closing tax loopholes. President Obama urged his fellow Democrats to "embrace the need for modest reforms" in Medicare and other social programs, but he also expressed the need to get "rid of tax loopholes and deductions."

"I realize that tax reform and entitlement reform will not be easy.  The politics will be hard for both sides.  None of us will get 100 percent of what we want," President Obama said. "But the alternative will cost us jobs, hurt our economy, visit hardship on millions of hardworking Americans.  So let’s set party interests aside and work to pass a budget that replaces reckless cuts with smart savings and wise investments in our future."

Though Ms. Maloney said she "certainly hope[s] that there will be an agreement," she was decidedly pessimistic about the prospect her colleagues in Congress will be able to make a deal to dodge sequestration.

"It's in the interest of the country, it's in the interest of our economy to avoid these across-the-board, automatic cuts, but we seem far apart at this point," explained Ms. Maloney. "In order to move forward, you need compromise, and when the opposition party is saying they're not going to compromise, I don't see how you move forward."

Though she described the Republicans as "pretty dug in" on the budget fight, Ms. Maloney held out hope there may be a last minute deal as there was when Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell managed to come to an agreement to avoid the so-called "fiscal cliff" earlier this year.

"Maybe they change," Ms. Maloney said of the Republicans. "That's what happened with Biden and McConnell. Maybe Biden and McConnell will come in or the president comes in at the end, but right now, we're marching towards sequestration. I hope we can avert it or there will be an agreement, but they seem very divided."

For his part, Mr. McConnell indicated he won't be part of any at-the-buzzer dealmaking when asked about the looming sequester by The Hill yesterday.

"Read my lips: I am not interested in an eleventh-hour negotiation," he said.

Micah Kellner (Photo: Facebook)

Upper East Side Assemblyman Micah Kellner's campaign for the City Council got a nice boost this morning with the official endorsements of the neighborhood's congresswoman, Carolyn Maloney, and the woman whose job he's aiming to grab, Jessica Lappin.

“I wholeheartedly endorse Micah Kellner for City Council. I have been honored to represent the 5th District for the last seven years and know he will make an outstanding Council Member for our community," Ms. Lappin said in a press release. "One example of his success was passing a landmark law to protect New Yorkers with chronic and life-threatening diseases from prescription drug price gouging at the hands of insurance companies," she continued. "His experience, creativity and accomplishments give Micah the best qualifications to be our next City Council Member. I look forward to voting for him and will be proud to call him my Council Member.”

Ms. Lappin is vacating her district to run for Manhattan Borough President, leaving a field of aspiring council members to compete for the position.

Attorney Ben Kallos has been the most aggressive fundraiser in the race and would appear likely to be Mr. Kellner's main rival, with dancing professor Hill Krishnan and gaffe-prone community board member Ed Hartzog rounding out the pack. Mr. Kallos was previously endorsed by former Public Advocate Mark Green.

Inaugural Cheez Its.

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- For most Americans, the phrase Inaugural Ball conjures up images of the commander in chief and first lady clad in full evening dress taking a waltz on the dance floor. If you'd like to maintain that illusion of grandeur when 2016 rolls around, Politicker humbly suggests you stay home and watch the festivities on television, because the reality is far less glamorous. Last night's main Inaugural Ball was like a low rent prom complete with a gym-like venue, chips standing in for hors d'oeuvres and 80's music. Amid all these cut-rate accoutrements and incongruously overdressed guests, we also spotted a basketball legend, a dancing congresswoman and, of course, the president.

The route into the ball, which was held inside the Washington Convention Center, took guests decked out in black tie through a number of security checkpoints that left them waiting in lines stretching for blocks outside. Once in the ball, the situation wasn't much better. Escalators took guests down into a cavernous hall that, apart from a few light displays and several presidential seals people lined up to pose in front of, had few decorations to disguise the fact the space was essentially a massive cement hangar.

Though the crowd was wearing their finest and paid about $200 for the privilege of attending, the only food they were treated to was two varieties of pretzels and Cheez Its on paper plates. We spotted at least one guest snapping photos of the chip buffet.

"No one is going to believe they had Cheez Its at the ball!" she exclaimed.

Those who wished to imbibe needed to endure a lengthy wait to purchase drink tickets before a separate long line at the cash bar.

Musical acts performed on a stage in one corner of the room, but you probably had a better view at home as most areas of the huge convention hall had no view of the stage and most ball guests were trapped in line for drinks long enough to miss a substantial portion of the show. Highlights of the concert included Alicia Keys, who performed a remixed version of her hit "Girl On Fire" that must have alarmed the Secret Service agents in attendance.

"Obama's on fire," she sang. "Obama's on fire."

When President Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, took the stage for their ceremonial dance, Jennifer Hudson performed a cover of Al Green's "Let's Stay Together." Their appearance caused guests to surge towards the stage or any corner of the room where they could get a glimpse of the first couple.

Initially, we didn't see any high-profile guests in the crowd, but after wandering the massive room we found a cordoned off area for "special guests." This elite section of the ball featured the same sad Cheez It and pretzel spread, but at least the drinks were free. Like a vision from a fever dream, we suddenly saw Knicks legend Patrick Ewing, who seemed to be have the only celebrity in the crowd, attempting to order a drink at the bar while contending with a steady stream of fans asking for his photo.

We asked Mr. Ewing about the speculation he could join the coaching staff of the Brooklyn Nets in the wake of the team firing head coach Avery Johnson last month. Mr. Ewing, who coached in Orlando and Houston after his playing career, said he hadn't heard from the Nets, but he would gladly take any coaching job.

"I'm willing to join any team, just give me the opportunity," Mr. Ewing said. "Just give me the opportunity anywhere, Brooklyn, New York, everywhere and anywhere."

Politicker also shared our personal story of giving up our Knicks fandom due to the way the team treated Mr. Ewing in his later years and eventually defecting to root for the Nets.

"I appreciate that," Mr. Ewing said.

Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney cutting a rug at the Inaugural Ball.

On our way out, we saw another familiar face, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, who was working her way through the crowd with her two daughters and a young man. Ms. Maloney grabbed our hand and pulled us along with her.

"You having fun or covering the event?" she asked.

When we informed her we were indeed covering the event she expressed her sympathies. A few moments later the DJ put on Madonna and when the pop diva commanded, "dance and sing, get up and do your thing," the congresswoman dutifully obeyed.

"We've got to dance!" she shouted back to us as she spun away.

Christopher Wight (Photo: Facebook)

The campaign of Republican congressional candidate Christopher Wight believes there was a conspiracy behind the endorsement of his Democratic rival, Carolyn Maloney, in the local Our Town newspaper (also known as the N.Y. Press). Nick Mackey, a spokesman for Mr. Wight, sent out a statement entitled '''Our Town' Newspaper Sells Endorsement to Maloney" this weekend detailing the campaign's belief the paper traded its endorsement for ad sales.

"Kate Walsh of the New York Press (Our Town newspaper) sales department recently informed Christopher Wight’s campaign that Carolyn Maloney had spent over $10,000 on ad buys in their newspapers during this election cycle and encouraged Mr. Wight to do the same," Mr. Mackey wrote. "In addition, Ms. Walsh coordinated the October 26, 2012 endorsement interview between Mr. Wight and newspaper's editors. During several conversations with campaign staff to arrange the endorsement interview, Ms. Walsh strongly encouraged the campaign to purchase ad space in the online and print editions of the newspaper."

Our Town is published by Manhattan Media LLC and the company's CEO, Tom Allon is running as a Republican in next year's mayoral election. Mr. Allon referred questions about this story to the company's chairman, Richard Burns, who vehemently denied his paper engages in "pay for play" and said it would be "irresponsible" to "run a story based on a press release of a disgruntled political operative casting libelous aspersions."

"I want to be quite clear: there is no pay for play in the Manhattan Newspaper Group’s political endorsement process," Mr. Burns said. "The editorial teams at Manhattan Media are in no way influenced by business people or ad buys in determining which candidates receive our endorsements. As you know, these endorsements are widely acknowledged as highly influential in local races, a reputation of which we are extremely protective."

In his press release, Mr. Mackey claimed the paper's "sales pitch" to Mr. Wight began in July.

"Earlier this year, Mr. Wight accepted an invitation to the publication's midtown offices for an interview with Megan Finnegan Bungeroth. Upon arrival, Mr. Wight was first guided through the ad sales department and given a lengthy sales pitch on buying ad space before being interviewed by Ms. Bungeroth," wrote Mr. Mackey. "Subsequently, in the publication's July 5, 2012 issue, Mr. Wight appeared on the front page accompanied by a positive article highlighting his platform and ideas. The Wight campaign has never purchased advertisements from New York Press. Carolyn Maloney received the endorsement."

In the July article Ms. Bungeroth noted Mr. Wight's promise not to enact anti-abortion policies as part of his larger belief that "health care decisions should be between doctors and patients."

"Wight is the type of Republican who might stand a chance with Manhattan voters—that is, fiscally conservative but socially liberal," Ms. Bungeroth wrote. "He believes that the government shouldn’t get in the way of a woman’s right to chose, an opinion that aligns with his political philosophy of getting government out of the way."

In her endorsement of Ms. Maloney, which was published on Friday, Ms. Bungeroth didn't give as much credence to Mr. Wight's pro-choice claims saying he "has said that he is pro-choice, he doesn’t have a platform for promoting continued access to abortion and reproductive healthcare."

We reached out to Ms. Maloney's campaign to see if they had any comment. There was no answer at her campaign office.

“When American families are struggling to make ends meet, we must do everything we can to keep people in their jobs. This is especially true for pregnant women who are about to have another mouth to feed,” Mr. Nadler said. “Ensuring that a woman who needs minor and reasonable job adjustments to maintain a healthy pregnancy gets that accommodation should be central to our society’s support for strong and stable families. "

The bill, called the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, would its authors say, ensure that pregnant women are not forced out of jobs unnecessarily or denied reasonable job modifications that would allow them to continue working.  Mr. Nadler and Ms. Maloney say that now women are denied simple adjustments like the permission to use a stool when working at a cash register or to carry a bottle of water to stay hydrated that would allow them to continue to work during the later stages of pregnancy.

“Women need to work during pregnancy and must not be penalized in the workplace for choosing to have a child,” Ms Maloney said. “The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act will give women the tools they need to fight ‘maternal profiling’ on the job.”

• The lawmakers cited the example of several women who have been fired essentially for being pregnant, including  Heather Wiseman, a retail worker in Salina, Kansas, was fired because she needed to carry a water bottle to stay hydrated and prevent bladder infections;
• Victoria Serednyj, an activity director at a nursing home in Valparaiso, Indiana, was terminated because she required help with some physically strenuous aspects of her job to prevent having another miscarriage;
• Peggy Young, a delivery truck driver in Landover, Maryland, was forced out on unpaid leave because she had a lifting restriction and was denied light duty.

The bill has 63 co-sponsors and the support of a host of advocacy groups, including the AFL-CIO, the ACLU and NOW. Prospects for passage in the GOP dominated House remain unclear.

But Wall Street likes nothing if not winners, and now that Mr. Obama seems more of a favorite in November and the sharpest GOP strategists caution that taking over the Senate remains a longshot, attention among the titans of finance has turned to their last bulwark against runaway regulation: the House of Representatives.

The crux of the concern is the House Committee on Financial Services, through which some of the most critical regulatory legislation, including Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank, has passed over the past decade. Because even if Republicans retake the White House, or snatch the Senate away from Democratic hands, it may not matter much for Wall Street if the House flips from Republican to Democrat and the House Banking Committee ends up in the hands of Maxine Waters, the 17-term Democrat from South-Central Los Angeles.

Wall Streeters say that the prospect of Ms. Waters at the helm of the Financial Services Committee could actually make them regret chasing Barney Frank—who was slated to retake the committee before he abruptly announced his retirement this year—out of Congress.

“Just the name,” said one financial industry lobbyist, “sends shivers up the spine.”

Why the worry about Ms. Waters as the nation’s chief banking regulator? It doesn’t stem from comments she made in her first term in office, when she suggested that the Rodney King riots that occurred in her neighborhood would better be thought of as a “rebellion”—since “riot,” she maintained, “sounds like it was just a bunch of crazy people who went out and did bad things for no reason. I maintain it was somewhat understandable, if not acceptable.” And it doesn’t stem from her more recent suggestion that “The Tea Party can go to hell” a suggestion appended by the promise that “I intend to help them get there.”

Rather, most of the concern stems from what is perceived as a general hostility to the banking industry, if not to the economic system as a whole.

“She is wacko,” said one New York banking lobbyist. “She is very flamboyant, very old school. She is not one of these younger, sophisticated members of Congress. She has no grasp of the technical side of finance. She was elected during a different time in history and she hasn’t read a book since.”

The corridors of Wall Street’s financial firms are filled with stories of Ms. Waters privately and, in some cases, publicly browbeating executives over what many see as issues outside of their firms’ purview.

“Most of the international banks would start folding their tents” if Ms. Waters were to became chair of the committee, said John Allen James, the executive director of Pace University’s Center for Global Governance, Reporting and Regulation and a former consultant for McKinsey. “She is anti-bank. She doesn’t like anybody that wears a suit and a tie. She yells at them, and says why aren’t you doing more to address the housing problem, why aren’t you doing more to raise the boats of the less fortunate. It is a total misunderstanding of what capitalism is.”

Thus far, Ms. Waters’ most noteworthy contribution to financial reform is a little-noticed provision she slipped into Dodd-Frank that would compel financial firms that do business with the government—i.e., all of them—to hire more women and minorities and created 29 separate offices of minority and women inclusion in places like regional federal reserve agencies and federal agencies like the Department of the Treasury and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

“This radically changes employment law,” said Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and former economist for the Department of Labor under President George W. Bush. “Right now the rule is that you can not discriminate. This is fair inclusion, which technically means that even if no woman or minority has applied for a job at Citibank, no Hispanic or Pacific Islander, Citibank can still be in violation of the law for not having such a person on staff. It is a dramatic departure from existing employment law.”

Dodd-Frank, which promised to regulate the financial sector in a way not seen since the Great Depression—and which business leaders promise will be their ruin—remains very much a  provisional piece of legislation and how its key elements will be enacted remains still in dispute.

But if Ms. Waters takes charge of the committee, backed by an Obama White House and a Democratic Senate, Ms. Furchtgott-Roth said financial firms can expect the more onerous interpretations to win out. Banks, she said, may be less likely to lend if their lending comes with greater restrictions or more strings attached.

Ms. Waters could not be reached for comment for this story.
Most economic policy experts say that even if the Democrats were to retake the House, there would be little appetite for further regulation—the bruises from the battle over Dodd-Frank still smart, and it remains vastly outside the realm of plausibility that even if Democrats hold onto the Senate that they will reach the 60-vote threshold required these days to pass major legislation. A Democratic controlled House would likely be a result of a nationwide rejection of the Tea Party, and the flame-throwers on the left may be quieted in favor of the forces of moderation.

But that doesn’t mean that Ms. Waters as chairperson couldn’t have an impact. Even if the status quo in Washington were to entirely reverse itself—and the Republicans were to retake the White House and the Senate, and the Democrats captured control of the House—bankers say they still would have a reason to be afraid. Committee chairs are granted vast powers in Congress, and Wall Streeters expect that a Chairwoman Waters would haul them before the committee routinely. The big banks could face the prospect of regularly trekking down to Washington (on commercial airlines, one assumes) to explain their lending or hiring practices.

“She is in the mold of the grandstanding politicians,” said Anthony Randazzo, the director of economic research for the Reason Institute, who has testified in front of the Financial Services committee. “When she asks questions, she doesn’t want to know an answer, or know what my opinion is as an expert. She is always trying to push particular idea or trying to get out of the process some statement that she could criticize, or trying to back up some preconceived notion of hers.”

There are certainly those in finance who cheer the prospect of a Chairwoman Waters, especially those who work with community banks and those who have a stake in women- and minority-owned financial institutions. But if Democrats do take control of Congress, many on Wall Street say they are holding out hope for an alternative chair of the Finance committee.

“In New York we have a very strong interest in the viability and the strength of the big banks since they are our key institutions,” said Kathryn Wylde, president of the Partnership for New York City. “Much of America is focused on how we can help the community banks and take it out of the hide of the big banks, but fortunately most of our New York representatives in Washington understand that the U.S. position in the global capital markets is determined by the strength and vitality of our big banks.”

And so most of Wall Street is hoping that a local representative, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney of the East Side, emerges as an alternative to Ms. Waters.

“You have different versions of Democrats and Maloney is far more moderate,” said Mr. James. “And she would be under the influence of Schumer and Bloomberg and Cuomo, who say don’t kill the goose that lays the golden egg.”

For Wall Street, there is a reason to hope. For the past several years Ms. Waters has been ensnared in an ethics investigation into whether she tried to steer money from the 2008 financial bailout to a minority-owned bank where her husband was shareholder and board member.

Opinion is mixed about how much the ethics probe will hurt Ms. Waters.

“For Nancy Pelosi, Maxine is a three-fer,” said one congressional staffer, noting that it will be Ms. Pelosi who ultimately makes the determination if Democrats retake control. “She is a fellow Californian, she is an African-American woman, and it is her turn.”

Others note that there have been a number of Democrats, including New Yorkers Charlie Rangel and Ed Towns and Michigan’s John Dingell, who have been booted from committee leadership positions despite their seniority, and say that there has been a backlash among Democrats to this practice.

“A lot of folks in the CBC [Congressional Black Caucus] would not look too kindly on an outside challenge,” said one Capitol Hill lobbyist. “They want to go back to the seniority system.”

Ms. Maloney has publicly said that she is not interested in challenging Ms. Waters for the post, but there is hope on Wall Street and among some on the Hill that she is merely trying to avoid a public confrontation, especially when the prospects of a Democratic takeover remain something of a longshot.

“I have talked to a lot of Democrats in Congress and there is a sense among them that seniority would not be triumphant in this case,” said one Wall Streeter closely aligned with Democrats in the House. “The ethics issue should be enough for Maxine. This isn’t a foregone conclusion.”

There is rich irony in Wall Street suddenly coalescing around Ms. Maloney in an effort to stave off Ms. Waters. In 2010, Ms. Maloney faced a fierce primary challenge from Reshma Saujani, a former hedge-funder who slammed Ms. Maloney for being needlessly hostile to the financial industry. Then, Ms. Saujani raised $1.5 million for her campaign, mostly from those same Wall Street titans now putting their faith in Ms. Maloney.

A pitched battle between Ms. Waters and Ms. Maloney, then, represents an acute dilemma for Wall Street, especially for those who give money to political campaigns. Help the Republicans maintain control of the House to keep Ms. Waters away from the chair? Or hedge your bets to increase the likelihood that in the event of a Democratic takeover, Wall Street donors can persuade leadership to give the gavel to Ms. Maloney?

“People in finance are incredibly concerned,” said one Hill insider close to both Ms. Maloney and the financial community. “They worry that Maxine will be incredibly unpleasant to work with. She doesn’t have a history of being a partner, while Maloney, people are finding out, does.”

For her part, Ms. Waters seems confident her long service will carry her through. “Let me let you in on a secret: I am the senior-most person serving on the Financial Services Committee,” she told the 2012 California State Democratic Convention last month. “Barney Frank is about to retire, and guess who’s shaking in their boots? The too-big-to-fail banks and financial institutions and all of Wall Street because Maxine Waters is going to be the next chair of the Financial Services Committee.”

dfreedlander@observer.com

Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (Photo: Facebook)

Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney was on hand for President Barack Obama's trip to New York City visit last week and she shared her thoughts about the presidential visit with The Politicker.

"I thought he was inspiring, he has a record to run on, the enthusiasm, I went to two events with him, was deep and strong," Ms. Maloney said. "When he made the comparison of where we were three years ago to where we are now, I told him we should have a bumper sticker that just says Osama bin Laden dead, American auto industry hiring and exporting. It shows the tremendous reversal in a lot of ways."

One of the events Ms. Maloney attended was President Obama's Thursday night fundraiser, which was hosted by Reshma Saujani, who unsuccessfully challenged Ms. Maloney in a contentious Democratic primary in 2010. We asked  Ms. Maloney whether she thought her former rival did a good job with the event.

"I think anyone who's supporting President Obama and helping him get re-elected is doing a good job," she said with a laugh.

Jerry Nadler appearing in the "It Gets Better" video. (Photo: YouTube)

Several members of New York City's Congressional delegation released an "It Gets Better" video today in an effort to stop Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender youth from committing suicide. Congressmen Jerry Nadler, Joe Crowley, Ed Towns, Eliot Engel and Jose Serrano and Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney all appeared in the video.

All of the members in the Congressional delegation make brief remarks in the video describing recent gains by the gay rights movement and assuring LGBT youth "it gets better." Mr. Serrano recorded his remarks in Spanish. Mr. Nadler finishes the video by reciting the number for the Trevor Project Lifeline, a hotline for suicidal LGBT youth who are seeking help.

The video is part of the "It Gets Better Project," an online initiative started by alt-weekly columnist Dan Savage and his husband in 2010. Several politicians and celebrities have recorded "It Gets Better" videos including President Barack Obama, Lady Gaga and "Harry Potter" star Daniel Radcliffe. Mr. Savage's other well-known online political project was "Spreading Santorum," an effort to promote Rick Santorum's last name as a scatological euphemism in Google search results in response to the then Senator's anti-gay comments. We doubt New York City's House members will be making a "Spreading Santorum" video any time soon.

Watch the Congressional "It Gets Better" video below.

Kirsten Gillibrand (Photo: Wikimedia)

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is the latest lawmaker to criticize the House for holding a hearing on President Barack Obama's controversial contraception coverage rule without including any women on the opening panel. In an email sent to supporters today, Ms. Gillibrand said she was "outraged" by the absence of female speakers at the House oversight committee hearing.

"I don't know about you but I was outraged yesterday when the House held a hearing on birth control, without including a single woman on the opening panel," she wrote. 

Ms. Gillibrand also included a photo of the hearing showing the all-male panelists.

"Sometimes a picture really says it all," she wrote.

Her email ended with a request readers sign up to join the Senate Democrats' "One Million Strong For Women" initiative.

"Women must be heard. Speak out loud and clear. Right now."

Upper East Side Congresswomen Carolyn Maloney  and Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, who represents the District of Columbia, both walked out of the hearing after asking about the lack of women on the panel. California Congressman Darrell Issa, who chairs the oversight committee, rejected a female Georgetown law student Democrats submitted to be on the panel because he said she was "not found to be appropriate or qualified." President Obama's contraception coverage proposal is drawing fierce opposition because it would require religious institutions to give their employees access to insurance plans with birth control and abortion coverage.

Read Ms. Gillibrand's full e-mail below.

Subject: Not A Single Woman

Dear [Supporter],

I don't know about you but I was outraged yesterday when the House held a hearing on birth control, without including a single woman on the opening panel. Sometimes a picture really says it all.

Women must be heard. Speak out loud and clear. Right now.

Join One Million Strong for Women today – and please pass this along to your friends and family.

Click here to join One Million Strong for Women right now.

Thanks,

Kirsten