Throwing This Out There...

For 2010...if only New York Republicans, who are as out of shape as a party can be, had an experienced elected official with reformist credentials, a fairly popular profile, a good reputation in the city, on Long Island, and upstate, and who had some time on his hands...

Update: Ok, now Patrick Ruffini is making the case on Twitter for a Rudy v. HRC contest in 2010.... stranger things have happened.... if Obama wins the nomination...if Spitzer resigns...or is impeached.....if HRC bows out with her integrity intact...if Paterson decides to serve one term....

Comments

That's a lot of ifs.

Posted by Trevor F. Smith | March 10, 2008 4:40 PM

Hillary bowing out with integrity....come on, you gotta warn us when you write crap like this. I snorted Diet Coke out of my nose. That stings.

Posted by Curtis | March 10, 2008 4:56 PM

Clinton for Governor, 2010.

BILL Clinton.

Posted by along | March 10, 2008 5:00 PM

Curtis:

Are you even a Democrat?

Posted by Tim K | March 10, 2008 5:00 PM

Tim K,

I think the Democrat party still allows people with opinions different from yourself.

The Billary act won't be passed until 2009.

Posted by James | March 10, 2008 5:03 PM

So you're saying it would make sense for Hillary to follow up her campaign against the man who would be the first black President . . . with a campaign against the man who would be the first black New York State Governor?

And for Giuliani, who could barely bestir himself to run for President, to put the pleasures of private life to the side for the fabulous opportunity to live in Albany?

Just because nobody in D.C. has heard of any other NY State politicians doesn't mean they don't exist.

Posted by Noah Millman | March 10, 2008 5:11 PM

So you're saying it would make sense for Hillary to follow up her campaign against the man who would be the first black President . . . with a campaign against the man who would be the first black New York State Governor?

And for Rudy, who could barely bestir himself to run for President, to put the pleasures of private life to the side for the fabulous opportunity to live in Albany?

Just because nobody in D.C. has heard of any other NY State politicians doesn't mean they don't exist.

Posted by Noah Millman | March 10, 2008 5:12 PM

The next elected governor of New York will be Andrew Cuomo.

Posted by David Weigel | March 10, 2008 5:12 PM

Condi is the VP for McCain. See newyorker.com

Posted by eorse | March 10, 2008 5:21 PM

if HRC bows out with her integrity intact

Curtis beat me to the punch. The green tea I'm drinking didn't sting though.

Question: Has there ever been a more humorless yutz on this blog than Tim K? Look up "stick in the ass" in a phrase directory and you'll find a picture of Timmeh.

Posted by Jeremy | March 10, 2008 5:26 PM

You think the guy who had NYPD detectives escorting his mistress (and walking her dog) could make a run at replacing the guy who had to resign because he got caught using an escort service.

This is a joke, no? Spitzer (I hope) at least had the decency to pay for it himself.

Revist that big 'if' you had for HRC and try slugging in Rudy's name.

Posted by sleepy | March 10, 2008 5:33 PM

Thanks for the heads up, Jeremy. Switching to green tea now.

Posted by Curtis | March 10, 2008 5:33 PM

First the kids were in charge.

Then the adults were in charge.

Now the adulterers are in change (and charged).

Bring back the kids!

Posted by lampwick | March 10, 2008 5:46 PM

um yeah right. "notorious adulterer" giuliani to replace aguy being ousted for probable adultery? highly unlikely.

Posted by Reader in NYC | March 10, 2008 6:04 PM

Why would Hillary run for Governor of NY? Being Governor would just prove that she is incapable of being a good executive. Better to leave doubt until she becomes President in 2012 by staying in the Senate and working on developing some actual foreign policy experience that doesn't involve blindly doing what Bush asks.

Posted by Ron | March 10, 2008 6:04 PM

Jeremy:

Could you be any more obnoxious?

Obama supporters literally couldn't be working any harder to make sure Clinton supporters are so turned off that if he is nominated they won't be volunteering or donating money to your candidate... some might even skip the election or vote for McCain.

I can't believe people can be so willfully blind not to realize that danger, even as they constantly harp on about how disappointed Obama supporters - starry-eyed young people and the African American community - will be if he loses.

It goes both ways people.

Posted by Tim K | March 10, 2008 6:25 PM

Could you be any more obnoxious?

Oooh...testy. At least you didn't hit me with one of your patented racial slurs. Thanks for showing restraint.

Posted by Jeremy | March 10, 2008 6:32 PM

Racial slurs? Oh give me a break. Talk about humorless.

"The blacker the berry, the sweeter the juice" is such a terrible racial slur - by the way - that they use the phrase repeatedly in a "Hairspray" song as a term of endearment.

I didn't realize Hairspray was produced by the Klu Klux Klan.

Posted by Tim K | March 10, 2008 6:39 PM

Let's not miss the forest for the trees here, people.

This is great news for Hillary. Sure, Spitzer was one of her Party Faithful delegates and will likely have to give up that automatic responsibility. However, his successor would become an automatic delegate for her, so no loss here.

However, more importantly there are huge upsides:

1) This gives her free publicity. You know the old saying, "there's no such as thing as bad publicity." I feel that this prostitute ring story, as well as her refusal to release her tax returns are great free press for her.

2) This story will go a long, long way in reminding automatic delegates that they need to beware of electing males to the highest political job in the land - there's just no knowing what trouble they might get into. Hillary has 8 years of on the job experience dealing with this reality. As a female she would never get caught with a whore (or an employee basically acting like one) and be forced to resign and/or endure a impeachment.

3) Spitzer ran as one of the most righteous politicians in recent time, who, if elected would change the political landscape. Sound familiar? and here we are, with him getting caught with his fingers in the cookiejar.

Listen, I'm not trying to unscrupulously insinuate anything here, either explicitly or implicitly - I'll leave that to the Obama campaign to do. I'm just saying, Obama might actually have more "experience" than he lets on, and we need to be very very careful about who we nominate.

The party faithful/automatic delegates know this.

Posted by Fred Agbot | March 10, 2008 6:40 PM

your humorless tendencies are showing again.

Posted by Jeremy | March 10, 2008 6:42 PM

Jeremy, it's funny when you happened to post that reply, since it appears to be in response to the funniest damn thing I've ever read. I'm literally cracking up here. Good work, Fred.

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 10, 2008 6:45 PM

Jeremy:

Is being called a racist a punch-line now?

Posted by Tim K | March 10, 2008 6:46 PM

Is being called a racist a punch-line now?

Is referring to Black women as "juicy berries"?

Here's a suggestion: head on out to the street and ask a person of color if your inane comment is offensive. I suspect your lily white ass will be pummeled in around 30 seconds flat.

Posted by Jeremy | March 10, 2008 6:57 PM

Jeff: Thank you for the compliment. I try to mix in a little humor with my posts (got to keep it a little bit light even when making serious points!) Was it the cookiejar comment that got you?

Back on the serious side of things, I've really become more and more convinced this Spitzer thing is great news. I think we may even see quite a few female automatic delegates switch from Obama to Clinton in the next few days. Following the huge race-altering wins in Ohio and Texas (and let's not forget Rhode Island), we've already seen at least 4 automatic delegates fulfill their duty and back hillary.

I suspect a vast majority of the remaining "unpledged" automatic delegates have been waiting for exactly this sort of eye-opening news to have an opening for backing hillary.

We'll see. I haven't been wrong so far!

Hillary '08!

Posted by Fred Agbot | March 10, 2008 7:22 PM

Jeremy:

It's become pretty typical of Obama supporters to seize on any and all opportunities to try to bring race into this discussion so as to play the victim. It's a well-established pattern. That's all I have to say about that topic.

Posted by Tim K | March 10, 2008 7:25 PM

Jeremy: I have to agree with Tim K here. Ever since South Carolina its been the Obama campaign trying to bait Bill into making race an issue.

With Hillary being the first viable female candidate this nation has ever had, it would be very easy for her to constantly play the victim in effort to win votes, but as we've seen she has not sunk to that at any point. America doesn't need a leader crying about their race (or gender) putting them at a disadvantage.

Automatic delegates know this.

Posted by Fred Agbot | March 10, 2008 7:39 PM

Why has no one mentioned Bloomberg?

Posted by Ben | March 10, 2008 7:48 PM

100 REASONS NOT TO VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON

http://100reasonsnottovoteforhillary.googlepages.com/index.html

Posted by mica | March 10, 2008 7:51 PM

Fred Agbot:

You're hilarious, while Tim K is...tedious.

Kudos, brother.

Posted by Jeremy | March 10, 2008 8:30 PM

Back to the original point:

(And for anyone who may jump on me for this, I'm not advocating that Hillary jump out of the race at all) however:

Rudy Guiliani will never win another elected office in New York State. People there hate him (I'm from there). The city remembers what an awful mayor he was. He's temperamentally unsuited for any executive office. And you can't lose New York City (completely) and still win the state. He'd lose New York City...I can't imagine anyone who lived through his mayoralty voting for him.

Posted by Kim | March 10, 2008 8:59 PM

O/T -

Fred - I think you mentioned before that you live in Puerto Rico - Do you have any thoughts on Fortuño vs. Anibal?

Posted by Alexis | March 10, 2008 9:02 PM

I don't think Hillary is going to run for governor of New York. However, I suppose the possibility does exist if she loses this nomination. According to Carl Bernstein she did briefly consider running to succeed Bill as governor of Arkansas.

I'd prefer to see her as Majority Leader though.

Posted by Tim K | March 10, 2008 9:14 PM

if HRC bows out with her integrity intact...

Indeed, after getting her shit kicked in by people from the likes of the Atlantic, that might not even be possible anymore. How many times will this place get probed in the future for pure comic relief like we look into Instapundit archives?

Did we find anything on Bill Clinton's sex life here at the Atlantic? I know the Obama's were wondering.....

Posted by Mark Simmons | March 10, 2008 9:20 PM

It's become pretty typical of Obama supporters to seize on any and all opportunities to try to bring race into this discussion so as to play the victim. It's a well-established pattern. That's all I have to say about that topic.

You must have missed Ferraro's class act, huh Tim?

Posted by justinb | March 10, 2008 9:21 PM

No, I read it. It was a gaffe in the sense that it was an example of truth-telling. It's not something a lot of people want to hear because it's not politically correct.

Does anyone really think a white guy who was 2 years out of the Illinois state senate would be the front-runner for the Democratic nomination. I don't think so. Does that mean Obama isn't qualified or undeserving to run? No. But a lot of people are qualified to be president. His heritage is just one part of the recipe of what's making his candidacy successful, but it's an indispensable part.

Posted by Tim K | March 10, 2008 9:29 PM

Does anyone really think a short-time US Senator would seriously be considered to still be in the race, even though it's no longer mathematically possible for them to win, unless that person was a woman who's last name is Clinton?

Anyway, it's impossible to say whether a white guy 2 years out of a state Senate would be the front runner. If that guy had the record Obama has, and ran the smartest and all around best campaign, like Obama has, then yes, I think that person would be the front runner.

It's a simple fact the the Obama campaign has been masterful in almost every aspect of the campaign (I didn't start out as an Obama supporter, FWIW).

Posted by justinb | March 10, 2008 9:39 PM

Well, I'm back to not being able to tell who's a Clinton supporter and who's trying to be funny.

And just in case they aren't trying to be funny--I think anyone with Obama's gifts for oratory, organizing, and most importantly sensing the shift in national mood and getting out in front of it, would be doing exceedingly well. Of any race. A woman would have had a steeper climb, but I don't think she'd have been rejected as so many ardent Hillary supporters, like Ferraro and Steinem, dogmatically assert. Plenty of women have become governors, senators, CEOs etc without needing their husbands to hold the job first so they could get the experience. It just is not the only feasible path to the nomination for a woman.

To believe Ferraro, you need to believe we always have a black man winning most of the contests in any given presidential election. And that nothing predisposes one for success in this country like being a black man whose father took off when he was 2.

Posted by Deborah | March 10, 2008 9:46 PM

Hillary Clinton certainly would never have needed Bill in order to "gain the experience" to run for office herself. That's, once again, deeply misogynistic talk. She made enormous sacrifices to her own ambitions and possible political future in order to support him over those years.

The collection of precious illusions operating here among Obama supporters is really mind-boggling. Politics of hope... new politics... different kind of politics ... all of that. But not just all of that, but the idea that race has somehow been "transcended" in America by his unique and historic candidacy.

This is really beginning to resemble a religion more than a political effort.

Posted by Tim K | March 10, 2008 10:15 PM

Does anyone really think a white guy who was 2 years out of the Illinois state senate would be the front-runner for the Democratic nomination. I don't think so.

Right, Tim. Because nowhere are the alleged negative effects of affirmative action (i.e., unqualified minorities being hired/promoted) more evident than in national politics.

A white guy who was an undistinguished, one-term senator (and first-time elected officeholder) was nearly the front-runner for the presidency four years ago (and I say that liking the guy!). And four years before than, a white dude who had, literally, failed at every single one of his life's ventures, won the presidency. A (white male) actor and Eureka College dramatist is regarded by many as one of the most beloved presidents of all time. A (while male) nuclear engineer/peanut farmer was president before him. A (white male) graduate of the rarefied halls of the Southwest Texas State Teachers' College enacted the most sweeping post-New Deal social reforms of our time. And so on.

So, yeah, a white, male first-term senator on the verge of nomination is pretty plausible. These things have a way of elevating surprising (white male) candidates into the presidency.

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 10, 2008 10:15 PM

Jeff:

That's quite the re-imagining of how qualified former presidents and nominees have been.

Let's review, shall we?

George W. Bush was two term governor of Texas

John Kerry was four term senator from Massachusetts, and lieutenant governor.

Bill Clinton was the one term attorney general and four term governor of Arkansas.

Al Gore was Vice President and two-term US Senator

George H W Bush was a two term congressmen, US ambassador to the United Nations, Director of Central Intelligence, and Vice President of the United States.

Michael Dukakis was three term governor of Massachusetts.

Ronald Reagan was two term governor of California

Walter Mondale was Vice President, US ambassador to Japan, Minnesota attorney general, and two term senator.

Jimmy Carter was governor of Georgia and state legislator.

Gerald Ford was Vice President and twelve term US congressman.

George McGovern was two term senator and two term congressmen.

Richard Nixon was Vice President, US senator and US congressman.

Hubert Humphrey was Vice President, US senator and mayor of Minneapolis.

Lyndon Johnson was Vice President, two term US senator, Majority Leader of the senate and six term US congressman.

John Kennedy was a two term US senator and three term US congressman.

Dwight Eisenhower was Supreme Allied Commander of Europe in WWII, Chief of Staff of the US Army, president Columbia University.

Harry S Truman was Vice President and two term US senator.

I think that gives a good idea about the kind of experience past president and presidential nominees have had over the past half century.

Hillary Clinton has a combination of convention and unconventional experience:

*two term US senator
*first lady of the United States
*first lady of Arkansas
*national chair of the Legal Services Corporation

Barack Obama, on the other hand has is a ONE term US senator, and Illinois state senator.

While Hillary's unconventional experience makes it difficult to fully judge how she stacks up to other past nominees, it is clear that Barack Obama is among the least experienced individuals to ever become nominee (if he does become the nominee).

I would go as far to say he is the least experienced.

Jimmy Carter comes closest to him, and we all know how that turned out.

Posted by Tim K | March 10, 2008 11:04 PM

George W. Bush was two term governor of Texas

One and a half, and if you don't know or won't admit how unbelievably powerless the governor of Texas is, then I'm not sure I care to read the rest of your list. And besides, just because he became a powerless governor doesn't mean he was a good one -- "P-p-please don't kill me," among other travesties. He failed at that, just like he failed at acquiring a decent pitching staff for the Texas Rangers, running the oil company his daddy bankrolled, and business school at Harvard. Gentleman's C, indeed.

But that was quite an exhaustive list; would you care to extend it back to Lincoln, and describe his qualifications to the presidency?

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 10, 2008 11:14 PM

Jeff:

Your criticisms of President Bush notwithstanding, he had more experience than Barack Obama.

As an aside the President actually had good advice for Obama at a press conference a couple weeks ago: "I suggest Senator Obama concentrate on his race with Senator Clinton..." This was a few days before Senator Clinton defeated Senator Obama in two major primaries. So, he at least knows politics.

As for Lincoln, That was 1860. I'm comparing resumes in the modern era, not pre-reconstruction.

I don't think the issue is qualifications. The only qualifications for the presidency are being a natural born citizen, 14 years a resident of the United States and 35 years old. So he's qualified. What I'm talking about is looking at the candidates who have applied and seeing who has the best, most extensive and varied experience to be president.

I think the two candidates who met my criteria for that were Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bill Richardson. Clinton having that combination of conventional and unconventional experience I was talking about, and Richardson being the grade A resume.

Personally I think having experience and having a record are important qualities.

I also like that Hillary has had major successes and major mistakes to learn from, and has been in both leadership and supporting roles. I think that's important and a new perspective to bring to the top job.

Posted by Tim K | March 10, 2008 11:29 PM

I love it. I love it when politicians burn. I love it. Get rid of all incubments. Term limits by scandals. I love it.

NYT today:

"The booker responds that he, in an apparent reference to Client 9, sometimes asks the women “to do things that, like, you might not think were safe."

The Eliot guy was one sick, sick, sick man. He is a Democrat.

I love it. I love it when GOP burn. I love it when Democrats burn. I just love when any politician burns.

Posted by eorse | March 10, 2008 11:38 PM

Tim, we'll probably have to agree to disagree. I tend to agree with Ferraro, at least when she says things that indicate that there are qualifications more important than "mere" elected office. Other comments of hers... well, not so much.

And while Lincoln was indeed elected in 1860, the fact remains that an "inexperienced" president saved the union under circumstances considerably more serious than probably 40 of our presidents have had to face.

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 10, 2008 11:53 PM

Had you broken out the word antebellum, you might have had me. But pre-reconstruction just left me feeling empty.

Ah well.

Posted by Curtis | March 10, 2008 11:57 PM

Jeff:

I think this is mostly about whether somebody likes or dislikes Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, rather than the logical arguments we both present.

The truth is there isn't much that could happen that would make me support Obama against Clinton and I think it's fair to say the same for you in the opposite sense. It would probably have to include a federal indictment.

I just wish more Obama supporters recognize that strong feelings of support and loyalty exist for the Hillary Clinton just as they do for Barack Obama, and that if he wins he's going to have healing and reaching out to do as well.

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 12:08 AM

hillary is going to fall on her sword in this primary. her sell-by date is long since past. the irony is that she talked her senior policy advisor (a black woman) out of a run against paterson. too bad she would have won and been the first black woman governor of an important GE state. hillary would have had her protoge in the governors mansion but she is so consumed with tactics that she forgot about the larger picture. it was the same mistake she made with the iraq vote, the same mistake she is making now. the hubris is practically shakespearean.

Posted by JC | March 11, 2008 12:50 AM

Why isn't anyone covering the Paul v. Clinton case in California?

Posted by Quinagin | March 11, 2008 11:39 AM

BTW I found some fantastic articles…A MUST read for EVERYONE “The Hussein Dynamic” at http://savagepolitics.com/?p=171 and “Follow the Money” at http://savagepolitics.com/?p=165

The writing is BRILLIANT and goes beyond what the MSM feeds us. It was about time!!!!! Their sections for “Humor” and “Political Analysis” are FANTASTIC!!!!

http://savagepolitics.com

Posted by Elsy | March 11, 2008 1:42 PM