What really happened with that Senate appointment in New York? New York Magazine
reconstructs the story -- or at least tries to: Yet in two months politics in New York devolved from dysfunctional to
chaotic, tarnishing every major player involved. And sometimes it
seemed that David Paterson wanted it exactly that way. His style of
governance, a dizzy mix of ingratiation and trickeration, has turned
what could have been a moment of triumph--a powerful new ally in the
Senate, a relationship with President Obama--into a slapstick fiasco, a
fitting sequel to the way Paterson got the job in the first place.
Politics is often a contest of half-truths, where the winner is the
best bullshitter. But thanks to Paterson and a cast of dozens, the
fight to become the next senator became instead a world-class festival
In all the rubble and recrimination, though, there is one thing the
antagonists agree on: Paterson never said the magic words to Kennedy.
He never literally offered her the job as senator. Was her camp
criminally guilty of wishful thinking? Was Paterson right to keep
everyone guessing until he was good and ready to decide? Did Kennedy's
self-destruction vindicate his extending the process as long as
possible? No one is telling the whole truth, so the picture only gets
murkier the closer you look.
(Hat tip: Elizabeth Benjamin)
The New York Magazine story has lots of great details. As a journalist, this was one that intrigued me the most:
Political operatives who have worked with him over the years say that the "source close to the governor" is often Paterson.