On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, the New York Post [Page Six] was quoted as saying
> WE HEAR . . .
>
> THAT Sen. Hillary Clinton played a critical role behind the scenes to
> orchestrate Sen. Chuck Schumer's appointment to powerful committees, which
> persuaded him to stay put and not run for governor:
I don't buy this at all on multiple counts. To start with, I don't buy for a second that Schumer wanted to be governor. He's been a legislator since he graduated law school in his 20s. He's never been an executive of anything, not even an ad agency. I think clearly he likes being a legislator, and the Senate is where legislators go to heaven. And in that heaven, he now has pretty much a guaranteed seat where riches accrue to seniority. Why on earth would he give that up for a job that would be stress city and where every election would be one he could easily lose, starting with the first one? And which even if successful he'd be out in 8 to 12 years tops? And for which he has neither aptitude nor inclination? It makes zero sense. It doesn't suit the man at all.
> "It's easier for her to run for president with Eliot Spitzer as governor.
The POST thinks Hillary has power because it thinks she is the antichrist. Even if he had to be bribed (which he didn't), Schumer himself has way more pull in the Senate than she does.
The most likely governor's race looks like fun though: Spitzer vs. Guiliani (with perhaps a preliminary round against Pataki).
Michael