A little out of nowhere this morning came a press release from state Conseravtive Party Chairman Mike Long that called on Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand – to whom the release referred as “Senator Flick” – to “come clean” on whether she harbors White House ambitions and will serve out a full six-year term if she’s re-elected this fall.

“(I)s she running for U.S. Senate or President? Judging by her non-answer, answers and well documented history of flip flops it is impossible to tell where she stands or if she is committed to serving a full term in office,” Long said.

“Gillibrand’s Off the Sidelines campaign and efforts to promote extreme liberal women candidates around the country are part of her broader agenda to create a national network of supporters to promote a 2016 bid. Unfortunately, as a result of her ‘Tracy Flick’ like unbridled ambition she regularly puts the needs of her national political agenda ahead of the needs of hardworking New Yorkers. New Yorkers deserve the truth – not another flip-flop.”

Long, an early and ardent supporter of the senator’s Republican challenger, Wendy Long, (no relation) cites “numerous reports” of Gillibrand’s growing presidential ambitions, including a Nov. 9 “Inside City Hall” interview with Washington Post writer Chris Cillizza in which he said “you have Gillibrand in there if Hillary Clinton decides not to run.”

Apparently, Cillizza also speculates about a Gillibrand White House run in his new book, “The Gospel According to the Fix: An Insider’s Guide to a Less than Holy World of Politics” in a chapter dedicated to potential 2016 candidates. (Of course, that list also includes both Clinton, for whom Gillibrand once volunteered during the former First Lady’s 2000 US Senate race: and Gov. Andrew Cuomo, for whom Gillibrand worked at HUD).

Every time I have seen Gillibrand asked about a potential presidential run, she has always deflected the question by saying she would rather see Clinton run in 2016 and plans to be serving in the US Senate a very long time.

Of course, that’s not a Shemanesque “no”, but what elected official in his or her right mind would actually say such a thing?

One could argue that the Conservative Party is actually doing Gillibrand a favor here by elevating her to the level of a viable White House contender – because why bother attacking her on this otherwise?

Also, this puts Gillibrand in the same bracket as Clinton – who, by the way, is the most popular political figure out there at the moment. Remember back in 2006 when Clinton was running for re-election to the seat Gillibrand now holds and everyone was always trying to pin her down no whether she would serve a full six years?

Of course, she was only being asked because everyone KNEW she was planning to run for president. And then, of course, she did. Lucky for Gillibrand, too, because if she hadn’t the former congresswoman would never have risen to the position she’s in now.