From the moment U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton's name surfaced as a possible member of President-Elect Barack Obama's future cabinet, New York state political insiders and pundits have been speculating on the person who would be appointed to replace her.
It now appears that Clinton will be Obama's secretary of state, which means Gov. David Paterson can appoint her replacement until a special election can be held in the next biennial congressional election year, which is 2010.
A big part of that speculation has focused on one question - how would the appointment impact Paterson's election chances?
The theory is that Paterson will want to choose a U.S. senator who can help his own campaign to remain the state's chief executive in 2010. Here's just a sampling of the chatter:
• U.S. Rep. Nydia Velazquez, of Brooklyn, makes sense because she could help Paterson with the crucial Hispanic vote.
• Attorney General Andrew Cuomo makes sense because by putting him in the Senate, Paterson removes him as a potential primary opponent.
• U.S. Rep. Brian Higgins of Buffalo could help deliver Paterson upstate votes.
The obvious problem, of course, is that by placing this power in the hands of one person, the best interests of the state's residents as a whole can easily be overlooked.
Unfortunately, the system is not about to change. With Democrats in control in New York, they won't change the law to remove the appointment power from the governor and call for a more immediate special election. They would have done so, for sure, had a Republican governor been in power. That's what happened in Massachusetts when U.S. Sen. John Kerry ran for president in 2004. Now, should Kerry be appointed to Obama's cabinet, voters in that state will make the call on the person to replace him.
That's how it should work. Campaigns and elections are essential to a strong democracy. They force candidates to get out and meet with the people, to learn about their concerns and to form policies that make sense. And they let the people make the choice.
The best New Yorkers can hope for right now is that Paterson puts personal ambition in the background as he deliberates.
Replacing Clinton:
Second in a two-part editorial series
A big part of that speculation has focused on one question - how would the appointment impact Paterson's election chances?
The theory is that Paterson will want to choose a U.S. senator who can help his own campaign to remain the state's chief executive in 2010. Here's just a sampling of the chatter:
• U.S. Rep. Nydia Velazquez, of Brooklyn, makes sense because she could help Paterson with the crucial Hispanic vote.
• Attorney General Andrew Cuomo makes sense because by putting him in the Senate, Paterson removes him as a potential primary opponent.
• U.S. Rep. Brian Higgins of Buffalo could help deliver Paterson upstate votes.
The obvious problem, of course, is that by placing this power in the hands of one person, the best interests of the state's residents as a whole can easily be overlooked.
Unfortunately, the system is not about to change. With Democrats in control in New York, they won't change the law to remove the appointment power from the governor and call for a more immediate special election. They would have done so, for sure, had a Republican governor been in power. That's what happened in Massachusetts when U.S. Sen. John Kerry ran for president in 2004. Now, should Kerry be appointed to Obama's cabinet, voters in that state will make the call on the person to replace him.
That's how it should work. Campaigns and elections are essential to a strong democracy. They force candidates to get out and meet with the people, to learn about their concerns and to form policies that make sense. And they let the people make the choice.
The best New Yorkers can hope for right now is that Paterson puts personal ambition in the background as he deliberates.
Replacing Clinton:
Second in a two-part editorial series
Citizen
Hot Jobs
The Citizens' Say
Post your comment - click hereThere are No comments posted.