Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Good for You, Gov. Paterson - Updated

I think it's apparent that this was not Caroline's decision, but the governor's. She was allowed to withdraw with the standard pretext -- to spend more time with her family. Only, in her case, it was probably what she really wanted all along.

This show of decorous strength and independence helps Paterson's electoral chances in 2010, not weakens them, imo.

Update: Uh... okay. Thing is, one way or the other, it seems her "candidacy" is toast. If the report of her withdrawal came from Paterson, then she (or somebody near her) is playing a game of chicken with him -- not smart. And if the withdrawal report did come from her, and she's now changed her mind, she's just added an exclamation point to a "campaign" of remarkable ineptness. I mean, uh, you can't, you know, do this kind of thing in, like, public.

Update 2:
“The fiasco of the last 24 hours reinforced why the governor never intended to choose her." We dodged a bullet here. Talk about unreadiness for primetime.

Update 3: A good outcome to this Rashomon tale.

4 comments:

classychic said...

The media's faux outrage is working again. I am glad that Caroline was not chosen but I don't know if the outcome will necessarily help Paterson's electoral chances. The NYTimes is clearly a part of the Obama faction of the Democratic Party and they are out to get any Democrat who doesn't fall in line with what Obama wants. I expect Paterson and Gillibrand to experience something similar to what the media did to Clinton and Palin last year. Paterson has a tough battle ahead of him.

vonda said...

At least there was no attempt to auction this one off - the disorganization and confusion is a refreshing contrast to the straightforward sale of the Chicago senator's seat.

Falstaff said...

My feeling is that this wouldn't have seemed disorganized at all, except for the extraordinary circumstances surrounding Caroline's candidacy. Her symbolic meaning, in several directions -- back to Camelot, and in the present to the Kennedys vs. the Clintons -- turned this into a different play... one that I don't think revolved (mostly) around David Paterson's decision-making process. To be sure, the staff recriminations at the end leave a bad taste. That was the one amateurish note here. But mostly, I don't think he had cards to play that could've avoided or muted the emotions at play here.

Just imagine Paterson doing exactly what he did -- but Caroline isn't one of the contenders. I think it would've played out entirely differently. It would've been No Drama Paterson, vs. Crude Boy Blago.

Having said that, the miasma of CDS certainly continues to infect the air, and its odor will waft toward Paterson, too, because of the twisted screechings of nutjobs like Dowdy Duck (see http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/opinion/25dowd.html?_r=1 for Mo at her nuttiest and most vicious). My own gut, though, is that Paterson is a solid guy, who knows himself... and that he's gonna come out of this in pretty good shape.

vonda said...

I just reread that series of contradictory rumors the NYT breathlessly published and I think you and classychic are both right.

What disorganization there was only enhances the media-spiking "Yeah, I'm human, deal with it" attitude that seems to have served him well so far.