(Crossposted from The Field.)
The debate over what is a local decision for New York - about who will fill the state's upcoming US Senate vacancy - has been waged upstate, downstate and with unusual passion out of state. At the center of the debate is Caroline Kennedy - the next big political super-weapon in the Democratic Party's arsenal - and rival camps are either reaching to put that armament into their own hands or to prevent it from emerging at all.
Yet all the pushing and shoving is correctly at the margins. The person whom New York law has given the title and deed to wield that weapon (or any other of his choosing, although the secondary pickin's are slim) is Governor David Paterson, who is playing his part rather masterfully in a manner that will maximize his own lasting ability to influence national policy and snare federal funding for his state from Albany...
Paterson has already succeeded - with Kennedy's help - in smacking down the attempt by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to attach his own "brand" to that of Kennedy more closely than any other New York political figure. But - watch, listen and learn from a pro - Paterson has already outmaneuvered Bloomberg and will emerge more cleanly "co-branded" to his eventual senate pick.
I've mentioned previously how arguments against Kennedy based on highly charged (and inaccurately used) words like "nepotism" or "monarchy" or the sexist "princess" diatribes from some corners would only backfire with Paterson, himself the son of a New York political legend, heir to his own dynasty and keeper of its flame.
Part-and-parcel of Paterson's political acumen - like the best New York politicians throughout a long and legendary history, he's unconventional yet with encyclopedic knowledge of the conventions of others - is that he knows how terribly off-target the speculation in the Big Apple tabloids, the New York Times, their columnists and the rest of the Empire State media usually are when trying to make a story more sensational than it really is. While bloggers and others have been led around by the nose ring by the Big Apple media mavens and their daily parade of false scoops surrounding Kennedy's quest to become senator, Paterson's strategy for the senate appointment is coming better into focus, and marches to his own drummer.
During his New Year's Day Open House at the Governor's Mansion - to which 300 rank-and-file citizens that won their tickets by online lottery were invited - he effectively narrowed the field of would-be senators by stating, flatly and clearly, that he won't be appointing any "caretaker" merely to keep the seat warm until the 2010 elections:
"I'm actually opposed to that. It would cause New York to lose seniority. And in the United State senate, the most effective senators are the ones who have seniority. So, I'm hoping the person I select wins the primary," Paterson said.
Got it? The "appoint a caretaker" boomlet is now officially dead. Gone are the dreams of some that elder statespersons like Bill Clinton or Mario Cuomo or Geraldine Ferraro or Liz Holtzman or Bob Kerrey might enter the Senate temporarily to make for an "open primary" by the long-term aspirants next year. It makes no sense to argue for or against it now. The big man has spoken and taken it off the table. And that forces Kennedy's detractors to make more specific cases for a particular candidate or another, without the vague "caretaker" crutch to lean on.
Here's video of Paterson saying it, courtesy of Albany's NY 9 cable news.
According to the Albany Times Union - in a story titled, Paterson: No Senate ‘Caretaker' - the Governor outlined with greater specificity than ever what he is seeking for his senate pick:
When asked the qualities he was looking for in his pick, Paterson said: "First, an ability to help New York state, particularly through this fiscal difficulty. Second, 'who is going to be the best senator five years from now?' Not necessarily the day they're appointed. Third, creativity. In other words: ideas that could crystallize into solutions, particularly our economic problems."
"Obviously experience in public service, experience in any kind of service that could translate into senatorial service," he said, adding he wants a candidate who will "think about hope more than experience, and who will think about the promise more than the reality, because for the next, I'd say four or five years, we're going to need the most positive point of view, the most positive advocacy for our state, which has been hardest hit in the economic crisis."
The emergence of Paterson's public stance against a "caretaker" appointment comes after much blogosphere lobbying for such a scenario. Perhaps Paterson sees it as others of us do: that most of the "caretaker" talk comes from out-of-state where concern about the seniority of New York's next senator clearly is not considered as important it is for most New Yorkers and their governor. And perhaps he also senses what others of us sense: that much of the pro-caretaker argument has come from those favoring other candidates, but unable to rally significant support for any specific possible appointee head-to-head against the benefits of appointing Caroline Kennedy.
Before coming back to the Paterson-v-Bloomberg power struggle, let me offer a few words on what the blogosphere debate over a Kennedy appointment demonstrates about forming narratives that do or don't sway public opinion.
One esteemed colleague took issue with Caroline Kennedy's statement last week that "Well, if he doesn't select me, I would support the person that he does select."
To others, it seemed at odds with previous statements by Kennedy that she would run for the Senate in 2010 whether or not she would be appointed first. The difference is easily explained: the earlier answer was appropriate to a "caretaker" scenario, but by last week Kennedy seemed to be operating under the belief that Paterson would be looking to appoint somebody to run and win again in 2010 and 2012. Do you know what Kennedy's shift in language likely indicates? That Paterson told Kennedy of his rejection of a "caretaker" appointment at least a week before he told the rest of us. If true, that would also indicate her continuance on an inside track while Paterson gives courtesy interviews and considers any and every comer to the post.
Despite the calls from some corners - including that of Mayor Bloomberg - that Paterson announce his choice now, the Governor has much better reasons to hold off.
First, Senator Clinton must be confirmed by the US Senate before becoming Secretary of State: While her nomination will likely be easily confirmed, a smart governor never counts his vacancies before they hatch. Can you imagine the political disaster that would befall Paterson if he announced his pick only for Clinton to later change her mind and decide she wanted to remain in the Senate instead? Or if some other unforeseen obstacle were to arise to derail her confirmation? It is the better part of prudence to wait until it's official before appointing her successor.
Second, the longer it takes for Clinton to win confirmation, the more weeks that a unique set of power levers remain in Paterson's hands. With more than a dozen powerful New Yorkers openly interested in becoming senator, he's the master of all of them until he names one. Kennedy, Attorney General Cuomo, US Reps Nadler, Maloney, Israel, Higgins, Gillibrand - even Hinchey was mentioned yesterday - plus Buffalo Mayor Brown and Suffolk County Executive Suozzi, each have to ask "how high?" every time the Governor or his staff picks up the phone and asks one to jump a favor for him. And that's not to mention others that are openly supporting an aspirant - US Rep. Louise Slaughter for Kennedy, Bloomberg rumored for Kennedy and the 900 pound president-elect in the room who clearly is fond of Kennedy and likely is hoping for her appointment - the appointment gives all extra motive to want to curry favor with Paterson, too. The governor would be crazy to let go of that power prematurely. And crazy, he is not.
The senate vacancy plus the addition of Kennedy to the equation have given Paterson the perfect storm through which to consolidate his incumbency after rising into the job last year from the office of Lieutenant Governor only due to the self-caused misfortune of his predecessor Eliot Spitzer. The senate vacancy battle has upped Paterson's national profile and media reach, and the spectacle of all these powerful people on bended knee before him offers an image of a strong and powerful governor, worthy of the Empire State in all its notorious pride in itself.
The longer this drags on, the more it seems as if Paterson has been governor forever and erases any sense of the rookie newness with which his ascension last year began.
Some colleagues with whom more often I agree (and look forward to siding with in future battles) have spearheaded opposition to Kennedy's appointment. That tends to happen sometimes in primaries and other competitions like this one, and none of us should take it personally when others have a differing view. Our much admired friend Markos Moulitsas, for example, is - with his opposition to Caroline Kennedy - a worthy adversary upon which to sharpen one's arguments. He's a pro at writing narratives and elbowing them into the media debate. That's one of the reasons I urge everyone to read his book, Taking on the System, because we should all learn from that.
Then again, as we say South of the Border: ¡No hay cachorro que pueda con el viejo lobo! And this old wolf is enjoying the sparring session over this dispute (that, luckily, with the "caretaker" scenario disposed of, won't last more than another month).
One of the passages of that terrific book that I quoted in my review said:
"Effective leaders draw people into their cause by creating powerful stories, with clear distinctions between good and evil, hero and villain. Instead of bemoaning the fact that Americans love their entertainment culture, political activists need to borrow Hollywood's proven methods to structure gripping narratives and compelling communications strategies. Making politics and causes participatory, exciting, and fun is key to sustaining citizen involvement."
In this case, Kos is casting Kennedy in the role of villain, and that's an uphill climb, including, evidently, among the 60 or 70 percent of the users of his site that in poll after poll continue to support Kennedy, particularly in light of another point he made in that same paragraph. Substitute the word "Kennedy" for "entertainment" and the words would read:
"Instead of bemoaning the fact that Americans love their Kennedy culture, political activists need to borrow the Kennedys' proven methods to structure gripping narratives and compelling communications strategies."
And that's what some are doing - including probably Governor Paterson, who fate has handed the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make the Kennedy meme work uniquely for him. The words "exciting" and "fun" go hand in hand with the pizzazz that the Kennedy organization has long brought to American politics and the Democratic Party in particular.
The anti-Kennedy narrative may have its natural allies in some pockets of commercial media punditry, but just hasn't gotten traction (Paterson himself yesterday answered a reporter's question about whether Kennedy's recent public appearances and statements have hurt her quest with a curt "no," and the criteria he listed, above, for an appointee "'who is going to be the best senator five years from now?' Not necessarily the day they're appointed" and for a senator who will "think about hope more than experience," provide a set of conditions that more snugly fit Kennedy than other aspirants.
One of the reasons the anti-Kennedy arguments haven't gotten traction is that they're inconsistent and contradict each other. On the December 21 we were told that Kennedy "won't commit to supporting Democrats" but on December 27 the new beef was that Kennedy wouldn't commit toopposingDemocrats in a primary. Such blogger gymnastics only succeed in making heads spin.
On December 17 we were told, on the same day, first that Kennedy was somehow a bad choice because the New York Times had a negative lede about her (comparing Kennedy to Governor Palin) and a few hours later that essay was updated to criticize Kennedy because the same New York Times story had changed its headline and lede with a more positive spin based on later appearances and statements by Kennedy that same day.
On December 18, much ado was made over a statement by embattled US Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) claiming that he knew who Paterson would appoint and that everybody else would find out "when he selects him." Kennedy detractors sought solace in that masculinization of the supposed choice.But Rangel himself quickly walked that one back, correcting, through his staff, to New York Observer reporter Jason Horowitz:
Rangel's office just pointed out to me that the interview in question took place a week ago, on December 11, before the psuedo-official Kennedy campaign rollout, and strongly advised against reading too much into the remark.
In the aforementioned December 21 argument (when Kennedy supposedly would not commit to supporting Democrats, days before the new problem was that she would not commit to opposing them) her association "with the kind of people who work with the Bloombergs" was another supposed problem. But by December 31, it was a new problem that those "kind of people" were reportedly no longer working on Kennedy's behalf.
That argument got even dicier when later on the same day the Bloomberg aide in question reiterated his support for Kennedy:
Deputy Mayor Kevin Sheekey insisted this morning that, contrary to multiple media reports, he has not backed off his efforts to help his "friend" Caroline Kennedy in her quest for Hillary Clinton's US Senate seat.
When crafting a narrative, the most successful ones - that is, those with the best chance of emerging as "the" narrative shared by public opinion - are based on reality and demonstrable facts. But when the facts and the next events in the parade don't support the narrative it's understandable that the proposed narrative becomes more of a fishing expedition in-search-of a narrative than a full-fledged narrative itself. If one argument sticks, the arguer simply does not quickly move to an opposite argument. In other words, if "but a Bloomberg guy supports her" had worked to sway public and blogger opinion, we wouldn't hear "but a Bloomberg guy no longer supports her" as the next argument from the same camp. The same goes with the "but she won't support Democrats" and the "but she won't oppose Democrats" doozies, and the "but the NY Times slammed her" morph to "but the NY Times praised her" arguments.
Those self-contradicting points do not add up to a bona fide narrative, not by the standards that our esteemed colleague usually demonstrates and that were so well explained in his book. Each undercuts the next, erases the previous into the dustbin of unsuccessful attempts at narrative construction. In defense of such contradictory narratives I'll just say that, so far, there is not yet any convincing narrative - certainly none likely to convince a political wise man like Paterson - against appointing Kennedy, and that's after a month of attempts to build one.
Now, back to the Paterson v. Bloomberg power struggle...
Back on Christmas Eve, New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (I was his constituent on the Lower East Side, and am not a fan of the man who killed rent control in New York, but his influence in NY politics, even we detractors acknowledge, is huge) told an Albany talk radio station that Paterson should be wary of Kennedy and basically called her a puppet for the Bloomberg machine:
The Legislature's top Democrat yesterday dubbed Caroline Kennedy a candidate of Mayor Bloomberg and questioned her loyalties to Gov. Paterson.
Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver said Kennedy's candidacy for Hillary Clinton's U.S. Senate seat is "being promoted by the mayor, by his deputy mayor [Kevin Sheekey], for political aspirations."
"And if I were the governor, I would look and question whether this is the appointment I would want to make: whether her first obligation might be to the mayor of the City of New York, rather than to the governor who would be appointing her," Silver added.
That was interesting (and also cited by Kennedy's critics) because Silver's words marked the first public indication of a political tug-of-war between Paterson and Bloomberg over whose senator she would be.
Well, a week later, Paterson has already won the upper hand and Silver seems convinced of it enough to walk back his original claim:
Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, who last week sharply questioned whether Caroline Kennedy should be appointed to the US Senate, said yesterday he's rethinking his views because he believes Gov. Paterson may soon pick her.
"I have determined there's a good possibility she will be the appointee of the governor," Silver, the state's second most powerful Democrat, told The Post.
"If she is the appointee of the governor, I will certainly be supportive of her. I will work for her and will work strenuously for her election."
... Asked if he was now more favorably inclined toward Kennedy then he was last week, Silver responded, "Yes, it's true."
... he reached the conclusion her appointment was likely because of "public opinion polls, which are not negative, and because the governor, I think, wants to run [in 2010] with a strong candidate, and I'm sure . . . having a well-known woman on the ticket will be helpful."
The latest mini-chapters in this saga have been the trial balloons floated through the LA Times and Associated Press about Paterson supposedly wanting to appoint a "caretaker" like Bill Clinton to occupy the seat temporarily.
Paterson, with his New Year's Day statements, has slammed the door on the "caretaker" gambit and made it clear that the senator he appoints will be the same one he backs for election in 2010.
Meanwhile, keen political observers have to hand it to Paterson. He's been playing this like a virtuoso. When he's done making everybody dance to his tune, pwning Bloomberg, and successfully co-branding with Kennedy, he'll emerge with a new respect and gravitas that will help him get elected in 2010 and rise many members of his party up with him.
In other words, Paterson has, step by step, constructed a more successful narrative, one that makes the Democratic Party's newest super-weapon - Caroline Kennedy - his own. It's an opportunity he so far has brilliantly leveraged and if he pulls it off he'll be bigger and stronger and on a more national stage, one that will be interesting and fun to watch in the years to come.