The Tripod

Who is a New Yorker? That's something that New Yorkers will debate as newcomers like Harold Ford Jr. try to do what Hillary Clinton did in 2000-move there, buy a home and launch a bid for one of the most coveted offices in the American political landscape. We New Yorkers are remarkably non-parochial about a lot of things, casting a strong net for talent above all else. The New York Yankees refers to where the Yankees play, not where they players come from, and most of those high paid men in pinstripes are not homegrown New Yorkers at all, and that's just fine. But a ball club has some 25 members; our Senate seats are two in number. To compete in the latter ballgame, only really special outsiders need apply.

As talk has emerged in New York political circles of a potential Senate bid by Harold Ford, Jr., the former Congressman from Tennessee, the debate is shifting to the question just how much "roots in the community" warrants a bid. At least in recent decades, the august office of U.S. Senator from New York has been held mostly by native New Yorkers and occasionally by the likes of Robert Kennedy of Massachusetts and Clinton of Pittsburgh, PA by way of Chicago, Little Rock, and Washington. The ultimate answer to how much of a New Yorker one needs to be likely depends on what else is on one's resume - and it had better be very impressive stuff.

Certainly, Harold Ford's rumored candidacy for Senate has raised many eyebrows in New York and has been the source of inquiry. A flurry of questions have arisen about both Ford's political ideology and his connection with New York. Perhaps the only thing left unscathed is Ford's political literacy (though even this has not been up to par). Though in recent weeks, Ford's obvious novelty to New York sensibilities and New York politics seem to have taken front seat.

On Jan. 12th, 2010 The New York Times ran an interview with Ford - a golden opportunity that Ford utterly squandered. In the interview, Ford comes across as elitist and presumptuous. When asked if he had been to Staten Island, Ford replied, "I landed there in a helicopter, so I can say yes."

This was Ford's opportunity to introduce himself to New Yorkers, much like Clintons "listening tour" before her run for Senate. It was an opportunity to show humility but ambition, novelty but prowess. Instead, the political gaffs proceed to make him the second coming of Sarah Palin.

Both Clinton and RFK were humble in their approach (and had a resume to beat). RFK was introduced and endorsed by former New York Senator, Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Clinton had less of an introduction, but her national appeal combined with her gestures of humility and novelty to New York garnered political support.

Without a doubt, Ford has a strong network in New York. About a quarter of his contributions from his time in Tennessee came from New York, and he has maintained those connections. Mayor Bloomberg seemingly supports his candidacy and he seems to be heavily backed by New York power couple, Steve Rattner and Maureen White.

Still, Ford seems to be confusing high profile contributors with the power of the electorate. Perhaps Mayor Bloomberg knows this best. He outspent his opponent 14 to one in the November election and only won by a five point margin.

Since his complete flop in The New York Times, Ford has stayed relatively low profile. He has embarked on an upstate tour and seems to be trying to recalibrate his image to account for his recent P.R. disaster, though my guess is it's too little too late.

Ford, an outsider, failed in making a good first impression and, while the electorate can be forgiving, he may have dug his own grave on this one. New York may be accepting of foreign influence; however, this is not an open invitation. Ford's limited national standing combined with his arrogant first impression may be the death of his candidacy even before it begins.

Then there are the longer-term consequences. Eliminating the filibuster would be an early election present to the Republicans. Accusations that Democrats changed the rules during the middle of the game would be inevitable. The Republicans are in campaign mode and combating GOP campaigns with attempted substantive legislation is clearly a failing strategy. The Democrats have forgotten that the campaign does not end after the election is over. The permanent campaign-for better or worse-is alive and well, and the Democrats must take note.

President Obama is well aware of this, and has lately become candidate Obama yet again. This was made evident in his State of the Union address and then in his recent visit with the Republican caucus. Still, many Democrats are so consumed with passing health care legislation that they have lost sight of the campaign. Perhaps if Democrats could take a step back, they would see that political victories must precede legislative victories, and right now, they are due for a political victory.

While the filibuster may be ineffective, and even counter productive in nature, its elimination is not in the near future. With that said, the Democrats must build filibuster proof majorities. Though the root of the Republican strategy is to block any bill that the President will sign, Democrats cannot win in the legislative arena without first winning in the political arena. Yes, this is something that is foreign to Democrats, but it is time to sharpen the knives.

The current Republican strategy is not self-sustaining, and Democrats must exploit that. Democrats need not whine or change the rules of the game. Rather, they must follow in the President's footsteps, retaliating politically. In what was great political theater, Obama forced "the party of no" to get on board with his agenda, not through ultimatums or condemnation, but rather through inclusion and collective participation.

If only for one night, Obama framed the debate in such a way that his opposition could not afford to object. What remains to be seen is whether

Article Tools