Obama's self-interest behind rejection of Paterson

Political observers have been treated to the recent rollicking spectacle of a sitting president defenestrating an incumbent governor (and a member of his own party no less). New York Governor David Paterson's sin? Being politically unpopular in a job for which he never asked, during a time of unprecedented challenges largely beyond his ability to manage them.

Barring a dramatic development, Paterson's fate appears all but sealed. With an approval rating hovering near 20 percent, he has a better chance of being struck by lightning during a snowstorm than surviving an expected primary challenge from State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. His clumsy attempts to link his political woes to racial bias - and by extension President Obama - did nothing to endear him to the White House. Because Paterson is deprived of a base of political support - he also polls low among African-Americans voters - the White House surely felt emboldened to move against him with impunity.

To be fair, it's customary for the White House to coordinate with party officials to field acceptable candidates at the state and local level. But the move against Paterson is unusual for the very insensitive and autocratic manner in which the president is diminishing an incumbent of his own party. The White House's intervention also deprives New York's voters of legitimate competition and a vigorous debate over who their next leader should be at a precarious time.

Despite Paterson's defiance, his candidacy is falling apart on its own. So why did President Obama feel the need to stage this impolitic maneuver in the first place? Alas, it is the president doing what he often does best - defending his self-interest as he quickly and often ruthlessly dispatches whoever lies in his path. It's also the latest manifestation of the president's astonishing self-regard.

Consider two events that transpired over last week: the president made an unprecedented foray to nearly every major Sunday political talk show to plump for his embattled health care reform plan, and his controversial decision to recalibrate an antiballistic missile shield in Eastern Europe. President Obama's aides and indeed, the commander in chief himself, operate under the assumption that the president's charisma and rhetorical facility can garner public support for his agenda and smooth over any differences.

Yet according to a recent Rasmussen report, just 41 percent of voters nationwide support Obama's health care reform - down two points from a week ago despite the president's talk show blitz and his speech to Congress. Also, European allies, especially in Poland and the Czech Republic, are unnerved by the president's decision to scrap the Bush-era missile shield. His aides suggest the president was banking on his ability to smooth ruffled feathers among allies in Poland and the Czech Republic, both of which made a strong political case to their citizens to defend the missile shield.

This thread leads back to the White House's treatment of Gov. Paterson. There has been speculation that suggests President Obama is concerned about the possibility of former New York City Mayor Rudy Guiliani defeating Paterson in a general election, then using the governorship as a springboard into a possible 2012 general election challenge.

Even in light of Democrats' often-displayed penchant for anointing candidates rather than electing them, the president's move to marginalize David Paterson is extraordinary, though not entirely difficult to fathom. President Obama has a well-honed instinct for self-preservation and burnishing his public image. The downside is that the Paterson affair further undermines his carefully crafted yet chimerical image as a post-partisan reformer, and could even help the governor pick up a few sympathy votes.