Just when we thought things couldn't get crazier in Albany, news broke on Sunday that the White House was encouraging New York Governor David Paterson to bypass his 2010 re-election campaign.
Most of the coverage for Obama's decision has centered around Paterson's 20% approval ratings, but given how the economic downturn has ravage most states, one is hard pressed to find a gubernatorial incumbent currently thriving. The person who has conspicuously managed to avoid any attention in this saga in spite of the fact that it is her political fate national democrats are trying to ensure is junior senator Kirsten Gillibrand. Gillibrand, who was heavily endorsed by senior senator Chuck Schumer, is a key figure in the Democrats national aspirations. State Democratic officials already worked to push back Rep. Carolyn Maloney and Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer's ambitions to challenge Gillibrand in the primary. The only thing left to do to ensure her reelection is to make sure that the state's 2010 Democratic ticket features a popular leader at the helm.
To that end, the question New Yorkers are really being asked to consider is not whether they favor Andrew Cuomo over David Paterson, but whether they are willing to sacrifice Patterson for Gillibrand. Cuomo's coy attitude toward his gubernatorial aspirations suggest that he's well aware that he's a minor figure in this drama.
In a sense, Cuomo is Ariel to Paterson's Caliban. This of course suggests that Gillibrand is Miranda, and Schumer is Prospero in this New York State Democratic adaptation of The Tempest.
Thus, as this drama continues unfolding we should not hesitate to return to our playbill to remind ourselves that the cast of characters is more expansive then is currently being relayed in the press.
Follow Ferentz LaFargue on Twitter: www.twitter.com/professorf
Is there any truth to the rumor that the Green Party is courting Van Jones?