How will you spend your Thanksgiving break?
Through a third party, President Obama has asked New York Gov. David Paterson to withdraw from the 2010 gubernatorial race, presumably providing space for Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to run as the Democratic candidate. According to The New York Times, Obama may be concerned that Paterson's unpopularity will hurt Democrats' chances in the 2010 elections for the state legislature and the New York delegation to Congress.
Whether that assessment is accurate, Obama is willfully and wrongly stepping over the line between national and state government so carefully etched into our political system by the Bill of Rights.
By no means am I implying that Obama is a tyrant. After all, it was a request, not an order or a legal directive. However, Obama has consistently communicated his electoral preferences — not just for national or cabinet positions as most presidents do, but also for local positions, which should not be receiving such high-profile influence.
This summer, Obama worked to dissuade Reps. Steve Israel and Carolyn Maloney (both Democrats) from running for Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand's seat in 2010. Additionally, he appeared in New Jersey supporting Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine.
Now he is asking a sitting governor to withdraw from a gubernatorial race in order to allow someone else to take his place as the Democratic candidate. At least in Congress, Paterson would vote on national policy. Obama is using Paterson, or the hopeful lack thereof, for indirect electoral benefits, and that is going too far.
Granted, Paterson and Obama have not seen eye-to-eye on certain issues, especially the messy appointment of Gillibrand to Hillary Clinton's Senate seat. Those differences do not excuse the unprecedented level of control Obama is seeking in state Democratic politics.
And it is a matter of control — control over who represents the party in New York, control over what impression that person may have on New Yorkers voting for Congressmen, control over the votes that those Congressmen cast.
Even if you don't support Paterson, this isn't the right way to go about replacing him. Democrats will have the primary to nominate and choose someone else. Republicans have the general election to vote Paterson out.
Obama's request is a backhanded way for Democrats to replace an unpopular governor. The story's appearance in The New York Times so early in the election cycle might be enough to plant a seed in many New Yorkers' minds that could seal Paterson's fate in the primary, whether or not he runs. Planned or no, the timing is an undue use of Obama's power and undermines the legitimate political process of campaigning before the people.
If Paterson is truly that unfavorable and that detrimental to Democratic politics, New Yorkers will vote him out in the primary. Obama doesn't need to do the behind-the-scene nudging for us.
