Louisville Courier Journal Editorial: Pitfalls Of Meddling.

Pitfalls of meddling

Yesterday's New York Times featured a front page photo of President Obama heartily shaking the hands of Empire State Gov. David Paterson. It could not have been a comfortable moment for either of them, since only a few days before, the White House had sent word to Albany that it might be a good idea for Gov. Paterson to abandon his quest for election. (He is finishing the term of Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who resigned in disgrace last year.)

Following a path that has produced mixed results in presidential history, Mr. Obama is said to be taking an active role as leader of the Democratic Party by recruiting candidates or attempting to push others aside in several states, including Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania. Over the years, presidents from Franklin Roosevelt to Richard Nixon to Ronald Reagan — generally pumped up by big landslides — tried to cast a shadow over state politics.

Of course, the interest now — as we approach the next decade — is pragmatic. Governors and legislators elected in 2010 will have a major say in how federal congressional districts are drawn. Redistricting is a high-stakes game for both parties. (So it is here in Kentucky, where control of the Senate is critical to the outcome of the mapping process.)

Still, presidential meddling in state politics can backfire. It almost did in Kentucky in 1938, when FDR got into the middle of a Senate primary between then-Majority Leader Alben Barkley and Gov. A.B. “Happy” Chandler. Barkley held onto the seat, but the resentment in the state over that contest lasted for decades.

As a student of history, the President must be aware of the pitfalls — because potentially there are many of them.

Editor's note: to read more, follow the NYT.