As the year draws to a close, so too might Caroline Kennedy's chances to be selected as Senator Hillary Clinton's replacement in the US Senate. Instead, it seems that Governor David Paterson may opt for a "caretaker" to hold the seat until a special election can be held in November 2010. From WCBS-TV News:

The former president is among several boldface names being touted as possible "caretakers" for New York's Senate seat -- people who would serve until the 2010 elections but wouldn't be interested in running to keep the job.

As the process of picking Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's replacement gets messier, the option may become increasingly attractive to Gov. David Paterson, who has sole authority to name a successor.

A big name like Bill Clinton or Democratic former Gov. Mario Cuomo could have an immediate impact for New York in the Senate while letting the large field of hopefuls duke it out in 2010, according to three Democratic Party advisers in New York and Washington who are close to the discussion with Paterson's inner circle on this issue.

Two others in the party confirmed that Paterson is still considering the caretaker option. The advisers spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to comment.

So should Governor Paterson go the caretaker route? And if so, should it be Clinton or Cuomo? More on this story from the Associated Press.

There's more...

As a source of speculation the NY-Senate seat to be vacated by Hillary Clinton, provides a whole range of entertaining angles. I find it a bit of a shame that Caroline Kennedy has apparently wrapped up the appointment. This not because she wouldn't be good in the job, I have great respect for her uncles and her father and some of her cousins, and I think perhaps like Ted she could parlay her famous name and connections and good intentions into a wonderfully successful senatorship. She did make a nice speech for Obama. The Senate was never intended to be strictly democratic. The Democrats should not shoot themselves in the foot by being overly "fair" (the Republicans never would), and should set themselves up to win elections (incumbency, fundraising, name-recognition etc.). However, I have a bit of hesitation over the extent to which our politics is hereditary, the undemocratic nature of gubernatorial appointments to otherwise elected office, and Ms. Kennedy's mostly mysterious positions, qualifications, and intentions.

This is not to say that Caroline Kennedy shouldn't be Senator, and if she is I will be a strong supporter, but I'd be a bit easier about it, if she had to prove herself through an election. And I'm a little sorry that Gov. Patterson seems to have begun to be boxed in. I also think this is a critical moment in US History and it would pay to have somewhat experienced, competent senators dealing with stimuli, climate change, health care, judicial appointments and the like. I think one of the NY House members, perhaps Jerrold Nadler or Nydia Velazquez would have the legislative expertise (and established positions) to be effective right away. However, appointing one of the dozen house members who wants the spot, would create a lot of animosity for Patterson. Appointing Kennedy avoids that. But even with borrowed staff and a protective wing from her uncle, I worry that she would have to take a year or two of watching carefully before being an effective senator.

Appointing Andrew Cuomo would also supercede the congressionals by being a statewide official, with a strong name who could be the strong favorite in 2010. However Patterson might be perceived as simply trying to eliminate a competitor for his reelection, you still have the heredity issues, and it would probably be a pretty big slap in the face for Kennedy.

My alternative is to appoint Mario Cuomo.

There's more...

The battle for the Democratic nomination has been unique for many reasons, not the least of which has been the fact that neither candidate has really been able to generate and then maintain momentum enough to seal the nomination (see Obama after Iowa, Clinton after New Hampshire, Obama after his post Feb. 5th run and Clinton after March 4th.) Each candidate's inability to make momentum stick has been reflected not only in electoral results that counter the then prevailing winds, but also in the national polling, especially the daily tracking polls, which have see-sawed between Clinton and Obama for weeks. Last week, in an apparent response to the Obama's well-received speech on race as well as the controversy over Clinton's sniper fire claims, Obama appeared to perhaps begin to pull away. Today, however, the rolling averages in both the Rasmussen tracking poll and the Gallup tracking poll are ticking back in Clinton's direction.

Gallup:

Obama 51 (52, 50...)
Clinton 43 (42, 43...)

Rasmussen:

Obama 46 (47, 48...)
Clinton 43 (42, 42...)

It's too early, of course, to know whether or not this will continue or if it's a daily quirk (or it could be due to what Pollster's Mark Blumenthal calls the day-of-week effect) but if recent history is a guide, it's likely just the latest return of the race back to what is essentially a draw, a further sign that Obama and Clinton are likely to trade the national lead through the June contests.

Now, obviously a presidential contest can't actually be a draw, there has to be a winner and a loser, which is why this proposal from Gov. Mario Cuomo yesterday was so intriguing:

Who can solve the problem?

Obama and Clinton can - by putting aside personal irritations, and to some extent personal aspirations, and agreeing to end the hostilities and form a ticket that offers both of them, a candidate for president and a candidate for vice president who is clearly good enough to serve as president, should the occasion arise. That candidate for vice president would also have a good chance of being elected president eight years from now because neither of the two would be too old in 2016. If they are not capable of doing that, the two could announce they will complete the primary schedule and convention with the winner becoming candidate for president and the other agreeing to be a candidate for vice president, thereby mollifying to some extent the constituency of the candidate who was not chosen as the nominee for president.

Think of it, over the next eight years we could elect both the first woman and the first African-American to become president. That's not a dream: It's a plausible, achievable, glorious possibility - if our two remaining candidates have the personal strength and wisdom to make it happen. The joint statement announcing their agreement would rock the nation and resound across the globe - sweeter than any political poetry; smarter and more meaningful than any tightly intelligent political prose.

While conventional wisdom would have it that this "dream ticket" is an impossibility due to the divisive nature of the primary recently, Cuomo's framing it as a means of uniting the party and giving supporters the best of both worlds could give it renewed momentum, especially since supporters of both are likely to feel their candidate's not being on the ticket would be akin to having been robbed. Now, Obama has always been my first choice for Clinton's VP pick should she win the nomination, but thinking about possible VP picks for him, I keep coming back to Hillary Clinton, mostly because she complements him both in style and constituency support. I really do think no matter who is on the top of such a ticket, it would be absolutely unbeatable. That is, as long as partisans on each side can swallow their pride should their candidate be relegated to the VP slot.

There's more...

In all likelihood, Barack Obama will be the Democratic Party's nominee for president this fall. As Hillary Clinton has repeatedly said, we will have a unified Democratic Party going into the November elections. There is no question of that. We all want to win the White House and enlarge our majorities in Congress. But beyond that, the question remains--for what purpose?

I've made no secret of my apprehension about Barack Obama on this site. Much of my consternation on issues has to do with what I think are his excessively timid proposals on the hugely important issues of health care and the housing crisis, and the unfortunate conservative-minded rhetoric that he often uses to defend them. However, these also tie into a larger more fundamental skepticism about Obama--that his campaign is more of a case for himself than a case for the Democratic Party, and more of a call for post-partisan unity than a declaration that the Democratic Party is the right party to lead America back to its ideals.

Now there are plenty of people here who argue in good faith that Obama will do more to establish a Democratic majority than Clinton. Most of these arguments are based on Obama's higher appeal among independents and Republicans, contrasted with the higher negative ratings that Clinton has accumulated over sixteen years in the national spotlight. I see this differently, however. There are two ways to grow the Democratic Party. The easier way is to dilute our party's message, to soften our ambitions and to seek compromise for its own sake--namely, to move our party towards new voters. The harder, but much more rewarding, way is to convince independents and Republicans that our ideas are better, that the policies and ideals that we support are the right ones--in other words, to move new voters into our party.

My fear is that Obama, despite the rhetorical brilliance first demonstrated at the 2004 convention, has chosen to commit the party to the wrong way. A look through his speeches tends to find very few mentions of the Democratic Party. When he uses the word "Democrats", it is likely to be contained in a phrase about bringing them together with Republicans, or blaming both of them for our nation's problems, as in this excerpt from his victory speech after the Potomac primaries:

It's a game where Democrats and Republicans fail to come together year after year after year, while another mother goes without health care for her sick child. That's why we have to put an end to the division and distraction in Washington, so that we can unite this nation around a common purpose, a higher purpose.

While listening to one of his speeches, you might indeed experience an epiphany and realize that you have to vote for Barack Obama, but he is not trying to spark a companion epiphany that you should also vote for other Democratic candidates. It is true that he appeals to conservative-minded pundits such as Andrew Sullivan, David Brooks, George Will, and the New Hampshire Union Leader, but it is not because they've suddenly become liberal--rather, it is because they perceive that Obama himself is not, or at any rate, is not particularly committed to liberal values. They are not now Democrats; at the most they are that other creature of Obama's creation--the Democrats-for-a-day.

In contrast, the right way is exemplified by another barn-burning, roof-raising convention speech, that of Mario Cuomo at the 1984 convention in San Francisco. This was truly a speech for the ages--a bold, unapologetic, emphatic affirmation of the Democratic Party and its values. It is worth watching in its entirety (a long excerpt and full transcript is available at http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches /mariocuomo1984dnc.htm), but here is a clip and a few key excerpts:

What's the difference between the Democratic and Republican parties?

It's an old story. It's as old as our history. The difference between Democrats and Republicans has always been measured in courage and confidence. The Republicans -- The Republicans believe that the wagon train will not make it to the frontier unless some of the old, some of the young, some of the weak are left behind by the side of the trail. "The strong" -- "The strong," they tell us, "will inherit the land."

We Democrats believe in something else. We democrats believe that we can make it all the way with the whole family intact, and we have more than once. Ever since Franklin Roosevelt lifted himself from his wheelchair to lift this nation from its knees -- wagon train after wagon train -- to new frontiers of education, housing, peace; the whole family aboard, constantly reaching out to extend and enlarge that family; lifting them up into the wagon on the way; blacks and Hispanics, and people of every ethnic group, and native Americans -- all those struggling to build their families and claim some small share of America. For nearly 50 years we carried them all to new levels of comfort, and security, and dignity, even affluence. And remember this, some of us in this room today are here only because this nation had that kind of confidence. And it would be wrong to forget that.

So, here we are at this convention to remind ourselves where we come from and to claim the future for ourselves and for our children. Today our great Democratic Party, which has saved this nation from depression, from fascism, from racism, from corruption, is called upon to do it again -- this time to save the nation from confusion and division, from the threat of eventual fiscal disaster, and most of all from the fear of a nuclear holocaust.

What about the president, Ronald Reagan?

Because the truth is, ladies and gentlemen, that this is how we were warned it would be. President Reagan told us from the very beginning that he believed in a kind of social Darwinism. Survival of the fittest. "Government can't do everything," we were told, so it should settle for taking care of the strong and hope that economic ambition and charity will do the rest. Make the rich richer, and what falls from the table will be enough for the middle class and those who are trying desperately to work their way into the middle class.

And, ladies and gentlemen, please think of this -- the nation must think of this: What kind of Supreme Court will we have?

Please. [beckons audience to settle down]

We -- We must ask ourselves what kind of court and country will be fashioned by the man who believes in having government mandate people's religion and morality; the man who believes that trees pollute the environment; the man that believes that -- that the laws against discrimination against people go too far; a man who threatens Social Security and Medicaid and help for the disabled. How high will we pile the missiles? How much deeper will the gulf be between us and our enemies? And, ladies and gentlemen, will four years more make meaner the spirit of the American people? This election will measure the record of the past four years. But more than that, it will answer the question of what kind of people we want to be.

What have the Democrats ever done?

Now for 50 years -- for 50 years we Democrats created a better future for our children, using traditional Democratic principles as a fixed beacon, giving us direction and purpose, but constantly innovating, adapting to new realities: Roosevelt's alphabet programs; Truman's NATO and the GI Bill of Rights; Kennedy's intelligent tax incentives and the Alliance for Progress; Johnson's civil rights; Carter's human rights and the nearly miraculous Camp David Peace Accord.

Democrats did it -- Democrats did it and Democrats can do it again. We can build a future that deals with our deficit. Remember this, that 50 years of progress under our principles never cost us what the last four years of stagnation have. And we can deal with the deficit intelligently, by shared sacrifice, with all parts of the nation's family contributing, building partnerships with the private sector, providing a sound defense without depriving ourselves of what we need to feed our children and care for our people. We can have a future that provides for all the young of the present, by marrying common sense and compassion.

We know we can, because we did it for nearly 50 years before 1980. And we can do it again, if we do not forget -- if we do not forget that this entire nation has profited by these progressive principles; that they helped lift up generations to the middle class and higher; that they gave us a chance to work, to go to college, to raise a family, to own a house, to be secure in our old age and, before that, to reach heights that our own parents would not have dared dream of.

Mario Cuomo would never say that Reagan helped curbed the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s, or that he brought the nation a return to clarity, dynamism, and entrepreneurship. He would not ever buy into the Republican meme that government had grown and grown without accountability. He would not portray universal health care as the government forcing you to buy something you can't afford. He would not say that the GOP has been the party of ideas. He wouldn't say that Democrats and Republicans are equally to blame for the lack of progress in Washington. He would understand that to truly build the Democratic Party and to truly get the kind of liberal progress we so badly want and need, we can't just tell people to elect us to work with Republicans--we have to convince them that the Democratic Party is the party of progress, the party of better ideas, and the party whose vision for our country is the one that they share. That's the kind of candidate I want leading my party--our great Democratic Party.

There's more...

The topic below was originally posted in  my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal as well as the Independent Bloggers Alliance, The Peace Tree, The Wild Wild Left and Worldwide Sawdust

Erastus Corning 2nd was elected mayor of Albany, New York eleven times, serving forty-two consecutive years, an unsurpassed tenure in American political history. Even before birth, Corning's destiny as Albany's "mayor for life" was scripted. As pillars of the WASP establishment, Corning men were expected to attend Groton and Yale and assume positions of leadership in industry and politics. One could say that the Corning family was noblesse oblige on steroids: an assumption that with wealth, power and prestige come social responsibilities. Yet the noblesse oblige represented by the Cornings had a dark side as their class established an oligarchy in Albany to preserve their status and power.

In the 1920s, the financial, institutional and industrial strength represented by the Corning dynasty forged an omnipotent alliance led by a salty tongued Irish working class political boss named Dan O'Connell. This unlikely union of the well bred Corning family and the O'Connell clan of Irish saloonkeepers initially bonded through cock fighting! Eratus's father Edwin served as Lt. Governor in the late '20s and collaborated with O'Connell until poor health forced him to step away from politics.

There's more...