The concern was that Gillibrand was too conservative, being from uptstate.

 Has direct ties to Hillary Clinton, having helped raise money for Clinton's 2000 Senate bid and later earning Clinton's endorsement when Gillibrand ran for office in 2006. New York's other Senator, Charles Schumer, reportedly was a staunch advocate for Gillibrand to succeed Clinton in the U.S. Senate.

So, you wanna fight about this too?

And. the long-suffering, loyal-to-a-fault - ie, her very Virtuousness is her weakness - meme about Hillary is, sorry to say, getting more threadbare and insupportable all the time.

Under the right circumstances, loyalty and taking-one-for-the-team serves the greater good; but while "the greater good" in this case was deemed to be the defeat of McCain/Palin, I'm not so sure the "good" of electing Barack Obama was significantly "greater" to ahve made it worthwhile in the long run.

So, what should she have done?  Maybe not going as quietly into the night as she did, not shortcutting the nomination process, not becoming as vocal a cheerleader for someone whose views she clearly did not share - and asking us to make that pivot with her.  Maybe resisting the wholesale changes to long-standing Democratic ideals that were ushered in when a not-so-Democratic Democrat was being fitted for the crown of heir apparent to the party.

Irks me that one's loyalty to party could be maintained through such radical changes to that party - because it's really not the same party it used to be.  Why would loyalty to something that doesn't reflect one's views be a good thing?

While I share your concern and while I was a strong Hillary supporter--with work & $$--in the 2008 primary, it is fair to say that a lot of the subterranean maneuvering within the structure in 2008 & the push to end the primary (see, as an example, today's Repub push) is a fairly typical power-play whenever there is a long primary. Even tho I had no difficulty focusing political allegiance on our then-candidate & now-President Obama following the conclusion of that primary, one aspect of the who-supported-whom among the Dem leadership was fascinating...i.e., recall that Nancy Pelosi pushed hard to close down the primary about the time of the Pennsylvania primary (which Hillary won.) At the time, I thought that gambit was something-other-than-fascinating (and, I'll probably regret having mentioned it here.)

Point of above paragraph: Of course, there was substantial misogyny demonstrated throughout the 2008 season...and, as we have seen since throughout the land, there is a strong odor of racism that many of us see as apparent during Obama's first term.  Also: The push by Democratic leadership cut a couple of different ways--in addition to the Pelosi move, we also witnessed the Kennedy push...etc. etc.  When all is said & done about which person played what role in the Democratic leadership at the time, my latest thinking is that the real drive had to do with  the strength of the Executive vis-a-vis the strength of the Congress--the old assimilation of power (and was that power to emanate from a strong legislative branch or from the executive branch) or the locus of power (was it to reside with the Kennedys, Carters, or Clintons.)

Whatever was the real animator will make very good reading from a historical perspective.

How can she change her cankles?  I mean, she covered 'em up with the pantsuits, but the the boyz didn't like that, either.  C'mon; you know.  It's not really about her anatomy; it's about their boy parts.  It's not really about her brain, because she's smarter than almost any of them; it's about their boy parts speaking instead of their brains.  Etc.