Seriously, who would have thought, a couple of years ago, that Eliot Spitzer's determined decision to name his running mate would make any real difference?
At this point, if there is anyone we would choose right now to put in the position of having to step in and become one of the "three men in the room," facing off opposite Sheldon Silver and Joseph Bruno just two weeks before the end of the fiscal year, rebuild confidence in our state government's ability to get things done, and do it all with a recession on the horizon and special interest groups licking their chops, it's David Paterson.
Sure, there were good people mounting a run for Lieutenant Governor (or, as it says in our state constitution, "lieutenant-governor"). But I for one am relieved that Spitzer brought then-Senator Paterson on board. I met the other candidates, and it's possible that they could have done the job. But I wouldn't want to bet a $120 billion budget on it, not with everything the new Governor will be up against.
In theory, when someone running for chief executive, whether of a city, a state or the country, picks a running mate, the choice is supposed to be based on who would be the best person to step in and take over on short notice. Fortunately, Eliot Spitzer made the right choice.
