Never mind about Kirsten Gillibrand - in most ways, she's a detail to this story. The problem with finding a successor to Hillary Rodham Clinton was David Paterson, and nothing - not even the Kennedy dalliance - underlined that like yesterday's final announcement of the selection of Gillibrand.
Two things quickly became apparent - she was called "unknown" and "very conservative." Neither one is especially true... and therein lies the problem. And the problem is Paterson.
From the beginning the Governor has struggled. As the Governor no one really chose for the role (if one thing is clear, it's that Elliott Spitzer wasn't thinking "succession" when choosing Paterson, part of Spitzer's overall tale of hubris), Paterson has had to establish himself in ways most politicians don't have to, and largely, it hasn't worked. Undermined from the beginning (you don't follow a prostitution scandal with tales of your own dicey affairs), Paterson has never found a comfortable niche in New York government, despite years of service and close connections to Legislators of both parties. Paterson, as well, faces the highly thankless task of reining in New York state's spending, an especially bad example of poor budget process and contradictory impulses.
And then came Caroline Kennedy.
A more experienced executive would, I think, have been more wary of Ms. Kennedy's (my typing fingers keep seeking out "Mrs. Schlossberg") ambitions. Kennedy's public, classy rep - as events made clear - was not built on political ambition, but on the imprimatur of class and wealth inherited from her mother, and her mother's family's connections to New York society (she is, in this, a Bouvier, not a Kennedy). That alone should have rung alarm bells - especially at a time when class resentments and suspicions of the upper class run silent and deep.
The process of picking a replacement was Paterson's to establish and, basically, he failed: what he needed to do was to set a transparent, public, objective set of criteria; instead, like a good machine pol, he emphasized the secret, backroom nature of the process, let no one into his thinking, and allowed Caroline Kennedy to flail away in public with little real consideration for helping her establish political bona fides that would have been crucial to winning over the public. I'm convinced that, in one well timed speech before the right group, Kennedy could have silenced almost all naysaying. Indeed, that was my big fear, that she'd pull this off by fooling people just enough into thinking she had a gravitas that she clearly lacked.
That didn't happen... but don't credit Paterson; by all indications, this was Paterson wanting her to succeed.
In the sad, embarrassing end to all of this - I know I wouldn't have wished the last 48 hours on her - I tend to buy that the truth lies somewhere in between: that Paterson wanted her, that for whatever reason, she couldn't commit, and that, in a messy "I quit," and "I'm not picking you" scenario, it all fell apart. However badly that reflects on Kennedy, she can get through this - I'm guessing no more forays into politics, and a life that continues to make sense for a classy Upper East side heiress (charity, charming books... she's got that stuff down pat). But Paterson, no matter how it went down, looks terrible. Both for making America's favorite three year old into a pariah, and for appearing, in the face of massive skepticism, to never fully establish her as the right choice.
Given all that, I still thought Paterson could regroup and settle this effectively, but the process of arriving at Gillibrand was just as opaque, and even more poorly managed. Anyone with a basic understanding of seniority would have known that picking Gillibrand required a deft touch: though she's clearly a comer, Gillibrand is only serving the start of her second term, after two fairly brutal election cycles. This, in a state with some of the longest serving, most prominent members of Congress (even if Charlie Rangel is in PR hell), including a slew of downstate members with access to the national media outlets like few others. This is a complex needle to thread, and Paterson showed essentially no finesse; indeed, Gillibrand already has an announced primary challenger as well as a fairly formidable Republican in the mix. I may have my doubts about Carolyn McCarthy (though given her path to Congress, one shouldn't count her out), but Peter King really does represent the best hope the New York GOP has at reviving hopes at statewide office, and yes, that includes a Rudy Giuliani who has scaled back his ambitions. Gillibrand's announcement should have silenced challengers... not emboldened them.
Then there's the political calculus - Gillibrand's hard won seat in Congress, defeating a 4 term Republican, could easily revert to Republicans; heck, the GOP was convinced enough of that to pour money into defeating Gillibrand this past election after she'd won handily the last time. Without her to defend the seat... it's anyone's guess. Yes, Gillibrand allows Paterson to claim some cred as a Governor who thinks about upstate... but Gillibrand is more Washington insider than real upstater, and her Albany district doesn't necessarily mirror the more Western areas of Syracuse, Rochester or Buffalo. It's truly unclear whether she has a base of upstate support, never mind having real pull across New York City and its suburbs (though Chuck Schumer seems fully invested in pulling her over the line). Gillibrand's rep as a solid fundraiser... well, if they say so; I think that too has yet to be proven in a statewide race with national implications.
And about those national implications... all of this, I think, reflects a tacit admission that Mrs. Clinton was a well liked, and better, Senator than many wanted to acknowledge (cue the lingering resentments of Clinton supporters); and Paterson, like many, seemed oblivious to the weight of expectation. That, more than her seniority, is why I think passing over Carolyn Maloney was a mistake: no one made carrying on Clinton's legacy - and there actually is one - so prominently a part of her desire to fill the role. Had Paterson acknowledged those expectations, and made it a clear element of his consideration set, he'd have gone a long way to improving perceptions of his process.
At this point, it's remarkable that Paterson's selection essentially looks worse than the process that got us Roland Burriss: all the implications of "pay to play" and "help me and I'll help you" considerations are far more apparent in Paterson's selection process. The bald calculus of picking Gilliberand for her major fundraising, upstate cred and appeal to women is all too clear, and doesn't help her... or him. And unfortunately, that bad rep is what marks Paterson as little more than another in a long line of dismal New York Governors, and Emperor's Club of lackluster that underlines how underserved the Empire State is by its state government. Elliott Spitzer was meant to break that chain... and failed. Now it's clear that Paterson, too, won't break the cycle. And that, I think, is why the real lesson this week is that Paterson's run as Governor is pretty much done. Not that we'll find a better Emperor anytime soon - Andrew Cuomo amounts to an Emperor's son in this story - but I think the search is on.
Comments