Governor Clinton

Dana Goldstein and Jonathan Alter suggest that if David Patterson continues to flail, Hillary Clinton could make a run in 2010 to become governor of New York. Like Dana, I think she'd do a pretty good job in that role, and I also think I wouldn't mind having Andrew Cuomo's dreams trampled on. What's more, New York has had successes with such Clintons as Governor DeWitt Clinton in the past.

That saying, being a U.S. Senator with a safe seat is a pretty good job and actually provides an excellent platform from which for Clinton to muck around in the thorny details of policy and political negotiations. What's more, unlike most Senators, she has a celebrity status that grants her instant ability to draw attention to whatever issue she wants to draw attention to. So I'm not really sure why she would want a new gig unless she thought it put her on a clear path to the White House.

Comments

I don't want her to run for governor. I want her to stay in the Senate forever.

But then, I'm a Democrat who cares more about national politics than about New York politics.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | April 2, 2008 2:19 PM

So I'm not really sure why she would want a new gig unless she thought it put her on a clear path to the White House.

It depends on who Obama makes his VP nominee. If he picks someone like Webb, she probably has very little shot at the presidency. The one thing being governor would do is give her executive experience. It would also make her make tough decisions. Since Governors have a much easier time being elected President than Senators do, it might prove worth it to run for Governor. If she doesn't have a shot in 2016(due to a youngish VP pick), she is better off in the Senate(meaning in her mind).

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | April 2, 2008 2:21 PM

Re "What's more, New York has had successes with such Clintons as Governor DeWitt Clinton in the past."

Actually, GEORGE Clinton would be an even more praiseworthy model. It was he who joined with Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to cut Alexander Hamilton's nuts off.

Although I think , ideologically, Hillary is more like a Federalist. I could definitely see her voting to approve the Federalists' Sedition Act (made it a crime to criticize the government.)

Posted by Don Williams | April 2, 2008 2:26 PM

Why would Hillary want to move to New York? She's never leaving DC.

Posted by right | April 2, 2008 2:33 PM

Why in the world would Hillary stop being a Senator for the utterly thankless task of being NY governor? It makes no sense on any level, either for her or New Yorkers.

For one thing she's never even lived in New York for more than a couple of months at a time. Your average out-of-state NYU college student has more concrete ties to the state than she does. She can probably recite various lists of people, places, and problems, but that's not the same as familiarity.

Posted by matthewcc | April 2, 2008 2:43 PM

I didn't know Jefferson and Madison were in P-Funk.

Posted by huh | April 2, 2008 2:44 PM

Let's slow down for just a moment, because it's way, way too early to start writing David Paterson's political obituary. He came into office with a lot of good will -- in part due to his personality, and in part due to the fact that he was not Eliot Spitzer at a moment when everyone was pretty sick of Spitzer. Paterson made a political calculation that the right time to fess up for his personal sins was right away, and as a result the press are busy trying to dig stuff up and see what will stick. But unless something serious arises -- and so far, I haven't seen anything that looks all that serious -- I think he still has a chance of being a strong governor, who won't step aside just because Hillary Clinton decides she prefers Albany to D.C.

Posted by Alex R | April 2, 2008 2:54 PM

Hilary Clinton is not a New Yorker. She pretends to be one so that she can live in DC.

Posted by Bloix | April 2, 2008 2:56 PM

It's a catch-22: if she damages herself so much her senate seat is threatened, she's too damaged to try for governor. Someone needs to do a Dole, where she shows her dedication to the presidential run by leaving the Senate.

I know nothing about Cuomo except that he's the son of Mario and many New Yorkers wish calumnies upon him.

Posted by Deborah | April 2, 2008 2:58 PM

Can you be President and Governor of New York at the same time?

Posted by Trickster | April 2, 2008 3:05 PM

"Flail"? Gimme a break. The idea that Alter is floating that Paterson might be forced to resign is ludicrous. Paterson's doing just fine -- going to bring the budget in on time, and this extramarital affair stuff is just silliness.

Plus, I can't see HRC settling for the mess that is Albany.

Posted by Glenn Edwards | April 2, 2008 3:15 PM

Maybe Clinton will have a John Kerry-like epiphany after losing the nomination this year and actually become the kind of Senator she likes to pretend to be. If that happens, she should by all means stay where she is and help Obama pass health care reform, legislation to tackle global warming, etc. Since that goes against the core of her and her husband's being, then yes by all means let her exit the national stage and take over the governorship of New York.

Posted by Ron | April 2, 2008 3:18 PM

This kind of talk is like the political version of fantasy baseball.

Posted by blah | April 2, 2008 3:21 PM

I agree. Clinton should run for Governor in New York in 2010. That'd be Bill Clinton.

Eric Alterman suggested a year or two ago that Bill should run for Mayor of NYC, in part because it would help demystify the presidency, something that I think the last 7 years have only make more important.

Governor would be just about as good for that purpose and would fit the Clinton's technical residence location better.

Posted by j.e.b. | April 2, 2008 3:40 PM

Paterson. One 'T'.

Posted by Warren Terra | April 2, 2008 4:10 PM

So...what issue has she drawn attention to? I can't really think of one. Unless it was the time she went on MTP to talk about...her campaign.

Posted by KathyF | April 2, 2008 4:19 PM

Wasn't there a governer Clinton who was actually named "Gouvernor"? Talk about destiny! I told my son about this, but Powerballwinner was not the least bit interested.

Posted by Njorl | April 2, 2008 4:26 PM

"What's more, unlike most Senators, she has a celebrity status that grants her instant ability to draw attention to whatever issue she wants to draw attention to."

Not so much with this the last 7 years. But, Ted Kennedy didn't become the Senator he is today until he got the Presidential bug out of his system. Hopefully, come 2009 we'll see the progressive, hard-working, courageous fighter we've all read so much about at the HillaryHub(tm). Unless McCain wins and there's a foreign warventure in need of political cover, in which case she'll vote for it and say she didn't.

Posted by David B. | April 2, 2008 4:30 PM

Add my voice to those who think it's way, way, way too early to write off Paterson--who, by the way, I like a hell of a lot more than either Clinton. Unlike Spitzer he hasn't been caught flagrantly breaking the law. There's no earthly reason he'd resign.

Posted by Antid Oto | April 2, 2008 5:21 PM

Actually, this is pretty much just an instance of "You can't cover New York State politics from a desk in Washington." Get someone who actually writes about New York on a regular basis and I might start listening.

Posted by Antid Oto | April 2, 2008 5:23 PM

I think senate majority leader makes more sense for Clinton, if the ineffectual Harry Reid can be persuaded to throw in the towel. It would certainly give her and Bill some added incentive to get on the campaign trail this fall and campaign, and raise money for, Democratic senatorial candidates. I don't expect most Obama supporters here to agree since 1) Most would only be happy if Hillary Clinton were driven from the party is disgrace, and 2)Some seem to be under some delusion that Obama doesn't need any help to do anything, he only has to give a speech and suddenly there's 400-plus electoral votes and 60 seats in the senate. But it's what best for the party to make sure her and her supporters are on side.

Posted by Tim K | April 2, 2008 5:37 PM

Tim,

A lot of us Obama supporters have been saying for months that Senate Majority Leader would be a great fit for Hillary. I'd say her skill set is better suited to that role anyway, the nitty gritty of policy is her strength.

Posted by Eric k | April 2, 2008 5:55 PM

Eric K:

I agree, I think her skills are well suited for that role. Not that I think that takes away from her suitability for the presidency. And I know a lot of Obama supporters aren't Clinton-haters and would like everyone to come together at the end of this process, but those aren't the voices (figuratively speaking) that I hear here most.

Once this process is concluded and Obama has a clear lead in delegates, popular votes, and it becomes clear the superdelegates are going towards him, I will be calling for everyone to come together around Barack Obama.

Posted by Tim K | April 2, 2008 6:07 PM

Re huh's comment "I didn't know Jefferson and Madison were in P-Funk."
-----------
1) Sure they were.

At the Democratic Convention in 1800, the delegates were loudly chanting:

"We want the FUNK!
Give up the FUNK!
We want dat FUNK!
Give up the FUNK!"

2) I would like to see the same at this year's Convention, when Obama comes out to accept the nomination. Somebody pass the word to Howard Dean.
hee hee hee

Posted by Don Williams | April 2, 2008 6:08 PM

It's certainly an ironic scenario, given that a previous scenario had Clinton winning the presidency and resigning her Senate seat, after which Gov. Eliot Spitzer would appoint Lt. Gov. Paterson to serve the rest of her Senate term. This leads to another question about this scenario: If it were to play out, who would appoint Clinton's Senate successor? Presumably Paterson would, but the scenario implies that he'd be resigning under a cloud. The alternative would be for Clinton to assume the governorship and then appoint her own replacement. Jon Corzine did it in New Jersey in 2006, and I don't think anyone was concerned about it.

Posted by navamske | April 2, 2008 6:28 PM

If Clinton appointed her own replacement it wouldn't probably be Congresswoman Nita Lowey.

Posted by Tim K | April 2, 2008 7:37 PM

would* I meant

Posted by Tim K | April 2, 2008 7:41 PM

Probably more profitable to be corrupt as a Senator than a Governor - not that Governors aren't corrupt. It's just that being a Senator you can rely on bribes from all over the country - as long as you don't cut in on some other Senator's bribes.

Having her as Governor of an important state might also limit her ability to damage the country as a whole.

Of course, having her as maybe dog catcher - excuse, me, "Animal Control Officer" - would be better.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 2, 2008 8:17 PM

How safe is her Senate seat going to be if she succeeds in sabotaging Obama's general election campaign?

Posted by SqueakyRat | April 2, 2008 9:08 PM

I live in Upstate New York and am a life-long Democrat, first voting for George McGovern in 1972, for which I am still proud. I'm active in campaigns. If you want Bill or Hillary for your state, fine. Take 'em - please! But don't give this castrating bitch-with-a-capital-"C" the NY Governorship. For me, the rank evil they have displayed on this campagin - facr it, they are our Democrats' Bushes - I will do everything in my power to get her out of office, will work tirelessly for her opponents. In the unlikely event she gets nominated, for the only time in my life will I pull the lever for the Republican.

Posted by MaxGowan | April 2, 2008 9:43 PM

The last I heard the Clinton lady was running for president and as far as I know the Democratic primary isn't over.

One thing that is becoming fast clear however is that if Mr. Obama and his movement have an unpleasant flaw it's arrogance.

I read how the Obama fellow will offer Al Gore a cabinet position as if a cabinet position isn't a step down and kind of a patronizing insult to a beloved former vice president (at least among Democrats) who won the popular vote in the presidential race of 2000 and just won a Nobel Prize. I read how the Obama fellow might even offer Al Gore the vice presidential slot as if a vice presidential slot on a ticket with a younger nominee for a former vice president who just won a Nobel Prize isn't kind of a patronizing insult.

I have lots of problems with the arrogance of power at every level in government and society but even if I agreed with the conventional wisdom that people with lots of money and power deserve special treatment I'd have to disagree with the idea that what Mr. Obama has accomplished to date permits he or his supporters to tell a sitting senator running for president to go be governor or something.

Posted by Linus | April 2, 2008 10:07 PM

Hmm...I'm not sure I understand why offering Al Gore a cabinet slot or the VP slot would be offensive. Obviously, either Democrat would probably want Gore as an agent in their presidency. Since they aren't just going to hand him the presidency, and since he doesn't seem likely to take the VP job, offering a cabinet job seems like a reasonable courtesy. Perhaps he could be Secretary of the Interior--it's a shame we don't have an equivalent to the environmental ministers that other nations have, but SecInt is close.

Posted by Lev | April 2, 2008 11:06 PM

She couldn't do much worse than the past two New York State governors ... or could she? There's a holdup in the Bronx! 
Brooklyn's broken out in fights!
 There's a traffic jam in Harlem
 That's backed up to Jackson Heights!
 There's a scout troop short a child! 
Khrushchev's due at Idlewild!
 So, we'll let Hillary handle it?!
Yeah, right: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | April 2, 2008 11:52 PM

Apologies for that momentary lapse of Clinton Derangement Syndrome. I shoulda dialed it down. Sorry.

To be a bit more, um, detached, though, let's be honest. Hillary only stayed with Bill for political gain. Anything she does would be to attempt to get back in the White House. She has clearly demonstrated a singular lack of executive temperment. Her claiming Executive Branch experience is like Yoko Ono claiming to have been a Beatle.

I think the epicenter of the Democratic Party has at last awakened to the Clinton toxicity, and that we will be at last done with them. Here's hoping. I know I'll never vote for any of them again and wish I had not voted for her in '06 (I could not in 2000, voted for Bill in '92 but would not '96.)

Posted by MaxGowan | April 3, 2008 9:03 AM