The decision of embattled New York Governor David Paterson to quit his bid for a full term is exceptionally good news for Democrats--not just in New York but nationally.
Rocked by scandals, including the recent revelation that he had personally meddled in a domestic violence dispute involving a top aide, the governor decided to drop his 2010 bid--although, according in the he will not resign the governorship.
"I am being realistic about politics," Paterson explained. "Today I am announcing that I am ending my campaign for governor of the state of New York."
This is a personal tragedy for Paterson, who has struggled personally and politically since assuming the governorship of former Governor Eliot Spitzer, who was forced to resign after getting wrapped up in a prostitution scandal.
It is, as well, a tragedy for the Paterson family, which had been at the forefront of New York Democratic politics since the current governor's father, Basil, was one of the first African-Americans to earn a top spot on a statewide ticket in the country. (Basil Paterson was the Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor in 1970 and served as New York Secretary of State. He remains an epic, and active, figure in New York labor, civil rights and political circles.)
Just about everyone in New York Democratic politics would have liked to see Basil Paterson's son make a success of the state's top job. But his tenure has been plagued by budget crises, political stumbles and personal conflicts. And his decision to seek a full term unsettled Democrats who may have liked the governor personally but did not like his prospects politically.
Thus, for New York Democrats--who faced the prospect of a bruising primary fight between Paterson and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, which might in turn have weakened the eventual Democratic nominee in what is shaping up as a tough year for Democrats in every state--Paterson's exit is anything but a tragedy.
Cuomo, the son of former Governor Mario Cuomo, is well positioned to make the gubernatorial run, with good prospects of winning the primary and general election.
That's important for Democrats in New York because, though New York is a blue state, it has a history of electing Republicans to the governorship--especially in years when national trends favor the GOP. Having a strong candidate at the top of the ticket should benefit Democratic prospects in the race to fill Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's old U.S. Senate seat (where appointed incumbent Kirsten Gillibrand could face tough primary and general election challenges) and a number of marginal House seats where recently-elected Democrats will struggle this year to retain formerly Republican seats.
Perhaps, most importantly, a strong showing for New York Democrats in 2010 will put them in a good position when it comes time to redrawing congressional districts in a state where redistricting has historically provoked bitter partisan wrangling.
The 2010 gubernatorial races--as well as state legislative contests--will define the direction of redistricting nationally. And the drawing of district lines remains the most definitional force in our politics, even more meaningful than money or the personal appeal of particular candidates.
In the absence of the sort of redistricting reform that would foster honest competition -- as opposed to the current system that allows politicians to use the map-drawing process to reduce and even eliminate competition in some states -- it matters who controls the statehouse when fresh census figures arrive. And it matters particularly in New York state, where Democrats have in recent years claimed a half dozen suburban and upstate seats that used to be considered reliably Republican. Many of those districts remain highly competitive and the redistricting process could well determine whether they tip to one party or the other.
With national Democrats worrying more and more about not just the 2010 election cycle but the redistricting fights of 2011 in key states such as New York, Paterson's exit will inspire some sadness for an overwhelmed man and his family. But there will, as well, be a great sigh of relief at the news that their prospects for retaining the upper hand in New York politics have just improved--dramatically.LINK

The mayoral race in beleaguered New Orleans has a candidate who is a true social justice advocate and progressive--Nation contributor and civil rights advocate James Perry. The New York Times has declared the race all but over--pushing a "white mayor in NOLA" storyline--and while it might be an uphill climb in this final stretch, it's worth paying attention to Perry's ideas and passions about a city he has worked hard to build and rebuild as a life-long resident.
Perry also happens to believe this race isn't over. "We still have time left in the mayor's race in New Orleans. The citizens haven't spoken yet," he said. "The New York Times relied on polls that surveyed primarily white neighborhoods, and if you talk to people in low-income communities, they're ready for something different."
Clearly, the still devastated city needs a leader who understands how to rebuild it--and rebuild it in a just way. Perry has been in the trenches running a civil rights non-profit called the Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center which fights for affordable housing and equal housing opportunity. That's a fight that makes Perry closely attuned to the most significant battles that lie ahead for the city's next mayor.
"We are faced with a difficult choice regarding the future of one of America's greatest cities," he said. "This great city can continue as a poster child for incompetence and corruption or be transformed into a national model for rebirth, rebuilding and renewed leadership. But we only achieve the latter by selecting a progressive Mayor who will make New Orleans safe by changing our philosophy on crime. We can't arrest our way out of the problem. We must invest in our youth and stop using prison to address mental health and social service issues."
Indeed in one debate, some of Perry's opponents proved that they didn't know the difference between a jail and an after-school program.
Perry doesn't shy away from the issue of race in New Orleans, even as he refuses to use it as a wedge issue. He writes: "We can choose to pretend that there is no racial problem. We can bury our heads in the sand and refuse to address the painful realities of racial differences in crime, education, housing, and employment...Or we can choose to courageously heal this painful divide, through open and accountable government, fair policies and procedures, broad community input, collaborative political efforts, and a determination to build a city that works for all her people."
He pledges that if elected Mayor, he won't run for reelection unless he cuts the murder rate by 40 percent. He believes the high murder rate is the city's most urgent issue. "There is murder after murder in New Orleans and I see the issue from where I live firsthand," he said.
Perry's " Road Map to a Safer New Orleans" includes strengthening partnerships between criminal justice, social service, mental health, and educational organizations to control crime; focusing limited resources on violent crime--not non-violent and municipal crime--and on the most dangerous youth and adult offenders; and implementing education and character development programs with high-risk youth in schools using proven evidence-based research methods.
He also supports "right of return" for homeowners as key to ending the shrinking of the city and rebuilding blighted housing stock. "We can't conquer blight of our housing without bringing the people back," he told me.
Perry proposes "5 Actions in 5 Days" when he takes office, including: a national search to hire a new Superintendent for the New Orleans Police and a monthly "Crime Report Card" to evaluate public safety performance; the city government's first Public-Private Partnership to implement a long-term economic development plan; and a revamped procurement system which reviews proposals in an open public process.
Perry has run a spirited grassroots campaign to take on the city's wealthier, entrenched interests and the candidates who represent them. New Orleans post-Hurricane Katrina deserves and needs a true social justice advocate at the helm. Check out Perry for yourself at www.JamesPerry2010.com. If you agree he's the right leader for a great city, contribute to James Perry's candidacy todayLINK.

President Obama hailed the healthcare reform bill coming out of the Senate as the "most important piece of social legislation since the Social Security Act passed in the 1930s." Former Democratic Party chair Howard Dean denounced it as a "giveaway to insurance companies."
Share this article


RELATED
ALSO BY
Blueprint for Dems DEMOCRATIC PARTY
BERNIE SANDERS: Democrats have tried to act "bipartisan" while Republicans got obstructionist, and the Dems are paying for it.
The Professional BARACK OBAMA
ERIC FONER: Like the Progressives, Obama seems to believe government can move beyond partisan politics.
» More
Larry Summers, Obama's lead economic adviser, described the $780 billion recovery plan as the largest stimulus plan in the country's history. Economists like Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz warned from the beginning that it was too small to lift us out of the Great Recession.
The president described the administration's financial reform package as a "sweeping overhaul," a "transformation on a scale not seen since...the Great Depression." Former Federal Reserve chair Paul Volcker warned that the proposed "safety net" for big banks would encourage much greater "risk taking."
Congressman Ed Markey, chair of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence, hailed the energy bill that was passed by the House as "the most important energy and environmental bill in our nation's history." Environmental leaders were underwhelmed; some considered it worse than the current law.
The discordant reality of these times is that these conflicting statements are all essentially true. "I want you to be ready," Bill Clinton warned bloggers about healthcare reform at the Netroots Conference in August, to "accept less than a full loaf." He could easily have been talking about the Obama presidency itself. Progressives must determine how to respond now that the fierce resistance to change has revealed itself.
The euphoria of a year ago is dissipating. Then, in the wake of a calamitous and discredited conservative government, Americans voted for change, electing a stunningly gifted leader and large Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. A mobilized activist base appeared ready to throw itself into the fray, and an emerging majority coalition suggested the potential for a long-term realignment.
Now the struggles of the first year of the Obama administration are generating increasing demoralization and anger. Disappointment about reforms in motion--healthcare, jobs, climate change--marks those who care the most. The recovery plan, which has revived Wall Street but not working families, is fueling dangerous right-wing populism. Substituting an unwinnable "good war" in Afghanistan for the unwinnable "bad war" in Iraq, along with a military budget exceeding that of George W. Bush, is a recipe for failure. The administration's foreign policy--despite the promise in Cairo of engaging the Muslim world and in Prague of embracing disarmament--is increasingly described by neocons as providing more continuity than change from the Bush years. Democrats cringe at prospects for the fall elections. Despite all the obvious eloquence and intelligence of the new president, many wonder what happened to the transformational presidency.
It Ain't Easy; Everything's Broken
Turns out, Obama is not the Messiah, and those who thought so were always fooling themselves. The disappointments of Obama's first year are less the product of his failures than of the balance of forces he faces in Washington and in the country. Many progressives thought we had taken back America with the election of 2008, but in reality the work had only just begun.
In fact, the president has been bolder than many expected, summoning the country to address fundamental challenges it can no longer afford to ignore. Yet the ambition of Obama's vision has been accompanied by a marked caution in conception and execution. Obama clearly aspires to a historic presidency, one that defines a new era as FDR's or Reagan's did. But he has never been a movement progressive the way Reagan was a movement conservative. He has surrounded himself with the brightest and best of the Democratic establishment, drawn inevitably from those marinated in the Clinton years. Many of his leading advisers--from Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner to Robert Gates--were directly implicated in the decisions that helped to drive us off the cliff. These voices are not advocates of transformation.
So the reform proposals that emerge from the administration often fall short not only of the hopes of progressives but of the objectives the president himself defines and the change the country needs. Obama outlined a new foundation for the economy in his "Sermon on the Mount," but the big banks were rescued, not reorganized, and no industrial policy accompanied the commitment to a new economy. Bankers were chastised for their bonuses, but there was no drive to hold executives accountable and empower workers, both central to an economy that sustains a broad middle class. The president shelved Bush's failed cowboy bellicosity, but the decision to escalate in Afghanistan accedes to the Bush folly of waging war against terrorism rather than intensifying global law enforcement.
Most surprising has been the reluctance to engage the right boldly in the war of ideas. Reagan consolidated the conservative era in part by bludgeoning reigning liberalism with a relentless conservative critique. He tacked and retreated on policy when necessary, but his ideological assault never faltered. Obama has a rare ability to frame the contrast with the right, to counter its market fundamentalism and virulent nihilism with a compelling statement of our shared values, with government as the necessary instrument of our common purpose.
But for much of the year, Democrats have been having policy debates--on the public option, on cap and trade, on systemic risk regulation--while Republicans and the resurgent right have been waging an argument about values and ideas, on liberty and free markets, freedom and small government. Although the administration has reminded Americans of the catastrophic legacy left by the Bush years, it has seldom indicted the conservative ideas that were the source of the calamity. Instead the president prefers to blame the process--"partisanship...politics...ever quickening news cycles...endless campaigns focused on scoring points instead of meeting our common challenges."
That default complements an insider Congressional strategy that prefers backroom compromise to public mobilization. This president enunciates the elements of his reform proposals and then lets Congress and his aides to do their work offstage. But that cedes the terrain to the legions of the old order that are mobilized to fend off real reform.
The past months have exposed the elements of that resistance--the cynical Republican strategy of lockstep obstruction, the Senate rules that empower a handful of small-state conservatives and the embittered Joe Lieberman. (It is worth remembering that there were majorities in both houses of Congress for a bolder stimulus and far better healthcare reform.)
And of course, at the heart of the opposition are the entrenched corporate complexes that feed off public subsidies and a corrupt Congress. These have been boom times for Democratic lobbyists and former officeholders. The commercial banks deployed nearly 417 registered lobbyists in 2009. The insurance and drug lobbies spent about $1.4 million a day, with 350 former legislators and staffers lined up to weaken healthcare reform. Legislators in both parties succumbed to the pervasive corruptions of our money politics.
The result is that even when historic reforms like healthcare emerge, they are so battered that supporters end up dispirited. Democrats face going into the 2010 midterm elections with double-digit unemployment, rescued bankers awarding themselves million-dollar bonuses, rising casualties in Afghanistan, the right mobilized and progressive activists dismayed. If Republicans score major victories in the election, that will make everything harder; the administration will become more cautious, not less. Clearly, if we are not to squander the best opportunity for progressive reform in thirty years, something will have to changeLINK.