Just got finished reading the Spitz article exile mentions below. This is one thorough and even-handed article. Here’s a couple key sections for those unable to read the whole thing. On what Spitz stands for:

When he speaks about his goals and beliefs, he cites Alexander Hamilton, Theodore Roosevelt, and Al Smith, who to his mind represent the three pillars of progressivism: “My job is to invest, the way Hamilton did; make sure the rules are enforced, the way T.R. did; and make sure everyone has a chance to play by those rules, which is what Al Smith stood for.”

On what Spitz ultimately wants to do with Albany:

Spitzer’s agenda, broadly and loftily speaking, is to make the workings of Albany more transparent: to disentangle the corrosive influence of the special interests and to combat, if not eliminate, the nest-feathering that flourishes in the dark. Campaign-finance reform is an essential part of this. More specifically, he aims to overhaul the state’s health and education systems, streamline local governments, and resuscitate the upstate economy.

On one reason Spitz’s negative press is overshadowing his positive accomplishments:

Avi Schick, a senior economic-development official in the administration, told me, “Eliot wants to transform the government. But it’s hard to encapsulate this in a sound bite or to see the results immediately. It’s hard to explain to people how competence affects their lives.” Spitzer’s progressivism, distilled a certain way, is a will to competence, which raises the question of whether competence can be willed.

As my Simon MBA friend Jason would say “It’s a ‘horizon problem’. (Meaning it’s easier to make decisions/judgements based on what’s happening now vs. future impacts.)

The article had a funny and ironic bit on Spitz’s strategic approach (or lack thereof):

At Princeton, Spitzer cultivated a friendship with the president, William Bowen. An avid tennis player, Spitzer once tried to play squash with Bowen, and thought, being young and fit, that he’d lick him, but Bowen ran him all over the court. “He gave me a lesson in tactics over strength,” he told me, apparently oblivious of the metaphorical application of his words to his Albany travails.

And I think this comes to the heart of NY progressives’ chagrin– the GOP has used immature, racist, hateful and divisive messaging to obstruct Spitzer’s overhaul of Albany. But the fact is that it’s working– given Spitz’s drop in the polls, it’s clear that the GOP, PR-wise, has been able to run Spitz “all over the court”.

Will staying true to his beliefs and goals, and stumbling on against the headwind be enough for Spitz to ultimately accomplish Albany housecleaning? I’d like to believe so. But anyone have any examples of that actually working for progressives in recent political history? It’s not a rhetorical question– if any of you have knowledge of that, please post in the comments. Maybe there’s a good lesson there we can use.

But is there a way for Spitz to be more strategic, more messaging-savvy? I’m not talking about triangulating, pandering, or selling out. Just about walking & chewing gum at the same time. Maybe I’m just impatient– I want the “business as usual” in Albany to go out of business, ASAP, so we can renovate and make it habitable for the people– the true employers of all those folks in Albany.