"When we mailed out the notice and we reached out to a lot of people, there was almost no response," Vito Lopez, chairman of the state Assembly's housing committee, said. "So it's quite interesting."

At issue was whether 421-a, which gives tax breaks to developers who build affordable housing and which expires at the end of this year, was worth renewing. Mr. Lopez, his Assembly colleague Rory Lancman and the five witnesses who testified all spoke in support of the tax credit program. Tempers flared, though, over the details of 421-a and the circumstances under which it should apply. Mr. Lopez strongly criticized Brooklyn's "gold coast" and pushed for the required percentage of affordable housing in new buildings to be increased to 30 percent.

"There are units for people making a hundred or more," he said in an opening statement. "There are almost no units for people making thirty, forty and fifty thousand."

Rafael Cestero, commissioner for the city Department of Housing Preservation and Development, expressed his support of 421-a and proposed a series of minor amendments, such as a clarified definition for commencement of construction and a more streamlined application process.

In response, Mr. Lopez proposed still further amendments, such as increasing the required percentage of affordable units in a building from 20 to 30 percent. He admitted that the higher figure would "have a lot of developers committing hara-kiri."

Mr. Cestero sympathized with the spirit of Mr. Lopez's proposal but remained evasive, saying, "We don't have to build that housing under every program." He said 421-a is "just one tool in the toolbox to create affordable housing."

Ever skeptical of for-profit developers, Mr. Lopez cautioned against the way developers have used 421-a in a way contrary to his own affordable housing ideals. He ranted against what he saw as "the consequences of, say, 421-a and a policy of a massive displacement in gentrification," bemoaning what he called the new "gold coast" of Williamsburg. He expressed horror, later in the hearing, at the fact that some developers have actually appropriated his term "gold coast" in their branding. "These are all wealthy people. They're not the indigenous people," he said. "Some people will clap and applaud that, but someone has to give support to the person that makes only $20,000."

Stephen Levin, council member of Brooklyn's 33^rd district, who testified next, echoed Mr. Lopez's ideals, saying, "We do not need any more luxury housing built without paying property taxes."

Mr. Lopez agreed. "I can't live in most of my district," he said. He then playfully accused Mr. Levin of perpetuating the pernicious gentrification. "You almost caused it when you came to the district. You lived in one of these apartments with four friends," Mr. Lopez said. "I don't know what we can do about that."

To make his position clear, Mr. Levin said the "exclusion zone," or the area in which 421-a applies, should be expanded to the entire city, a move that would eliminate tax breaks for buildings that don't include affordable housing.

The big storm came after the testimony of Michael Slattery, senior vice president of the Real Estate Board of New York. Mr. Slattery said that an additional cut to developers' tax burdens, from 30 to 12 percent, was the only way to get them to build more affordable housing. "We're just looking for a shared burden to keep these units affordable," he said.

But Mr. Lopez didn't like Mr. Slattery's attitude. He thought Mr. Slattery's desire to further cut the taxes was unrealistic, and he accused REBNY of being too focused on profit. "Become a little bit more humanitarian," he said. "You're asking some tough stuff here."

When Mr. Slattery addressed the now-defunct negotiable certificate program, which allowed affordable housing developers to sell tax rebates to market-rate developers, Mr. Lopez exploded. "I try to have a working relationship with you," he said. "Give me some respect. That was driven solely by exorbitant profit margins. It was outrageous. Totally outrageous."

He got particularly inflamed over Williamsburg's New Domino development: "Everything is more money. Greater profit margin. Is that what government is supposed to do? Guarantee greater profit margin? Segregate people? Racially divide people? I mean, this is what you're talking about."

The chairman later apologized for his outburst, saying it was motivated by passion.

After two more witnesses testified, the hearing had raised provocative questions without hammering out many solutions.

"I don't have all the answers," Mr. Lopez said. "But I plan, God willing, to have a hearing in every borough in the next six months to talk about the creation of a 70-30 program and a moratorium on every other kind of development—and ask the city and state not to support anything but that. Now, you may say I'm going nuts. But we don't need any more luxury development."

walden@observer.com

When representatives from Citizens Union testified, they got some brushback from state lawmakers who thought the group was representing the mayor's interests, rather than the public.

"I'm just wondering what are the outer limits of Citizens Union's willingness to be a shill for the Mayor," Assemblyman Rory Lancman asked at one point.

Video of the exchange is here.

The commission, which has been a long time coming, is going to review the law around term limits, among other issues.

Assemblyman Dick Gottfried of Manhattan complained about the commission's power to "bump" other initiatives—from the City Council or voters—off the ballot.

Gottfried said that power to bump initiatives off the ballot "can effectively shut down" the democratic process. "This flies in the face of the notion" of an "open discussion" and the system of "checks and balances."

Assemblyman Rory Lancman said the impact of the current Charter Revision Commission means that changes to the charter can only happen "with the mayor's approval."

The first speaker, Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, was asked what role he had in advising the mayor about whom should be appointed to the charter.

"There were none," De Blasio said.

"Anyone on the commission recommended by your office?" de Blasio was asked.

"No," he said.

Taking notes on the hearing, other  than me, are two members of the mayor's staff: Matthew Gorton, and attorney Ariel Dvorkin [name fixed].

"What's next, martial law?" Assemblyman Rory Lancman, a Queens Democrat, asked.

Paterson's proposal would, temporarily, give him the power to make spending and revenue decisions to bridge a multi-billion dollar mid-year imbalance. Article VII of the State Constitution describes New York's budget process. The governor has the power to submit an executive budget, but the final authority for spending rests in approval of the legislature. I asked State Senator Neil Breslin, an Albany Democrat and long-practicing attorney, whether this was Constitutional.

"My initial reaction is that I seriously question whether it's constitutional; whether we can abrogate, through legislation, any of our constitutional powers," Breslin said lawyerly. "Initially, that's a commitment that I don't think legislators should be eager or quick to give up. We have our own responsibilities and my initial reaction is that I would be opposed to that."

"Not only that, but it violates several hundred years of American history," added Professor Gerald Benjamin, an expert on New York government who teaches at SUNY New Paltz. "Let me remind you: the American Revolution occurred on a number of issues, one of which was called taxation without representation. And the location of fiscal authority in the legislature was a fundamental tenet of representative government, and we have given the power to tax and the power to spend to legislative bodies."

He added, specifically referencing the State Senate: "the fact that somebody's irresponsible doesn't take away the fundamental point that that institution should do what it is supposed to do."

Kathy Wylde, the president of the Partnership for New York City, applauded the fact that Paterson was trying something.

"Governor Paterson's willingness to take the heat for making the budget cuts that are required to save New York State's credit rating is a demonstration of political courage unlike any we have seen in Albany for some time," she said. "The business community fully supports his request that the Legislature authorize the Governor to act on behalf of the public interest to forestall a deeper fiscal crisis and urges quick passage of the authorizing legislation."

Speaking to reporters after an extraordinary session that lasted just over three minutes, Senators Malcolm Smith and John Sampson, the leaders of the Democratic conference, insisted that they did not want to work out the problems and convene in a regular legislative session, which David Paterson is suggesting as the easiest way to accomplish what needs to be accomplished. In a regular session, only bills that have already passed the Assembly would be eligible to become law.

"We're waiting for an extraordinary session of both the Assembly and Senate to come into place, because the, uh, the constitutionality with respect to this legislation is too important to just go through mock sessions to get things done. So, five days left for the repeal of vacancy de-control," Sampson said Thursday afternoon, in a nod to gathered demonstrators. "School governance. Power for Jobs. Upstate to downstate: We're looking forward to completing the people's work on or before June 30."

That, significantly, is the date that the law giving Michael Bloomberg control over New York City schools expires. Sampson has been clear in his position that mayoral control needs to be watered down, and earlier this week introduced a bill that would require fixed terms for members of a school governing board. Mayoral control has already passed the Democratic-controlled Assembly, and it was assumed that it was only a matter of getting the divided Senate—where it has support from Republicans and some Democrats—to come to order for it to pass there.

Two sources familiar with Democratic strategy said that having the chance to address the legislation is being pushed for by Sampson on behalf of several members of the conference who support replacing mayoral control with something closer to the old Board of Ed system.

Republicans in the chamber are carrying the new pro-mayoral-control bill, and remained confident Thursday in its passage. Bloomberg, who has sent top lieutenants to monitor the situation in Albany, were aghast.

"If the Senate passes something that differs by more—by one word or more, it is saying to the city, ‘We want to resurrect the Soviet Union. We want to bring back chaos.' It is not going to be no change whatsoever," Bloomberg said at an event in the Bronx. "The Assembly has acted; they said they're not coming back. Shelly said it a million times and the Senate has had seven years to work on this. It's not the time to make any changes and the way Albany works, if the Senate doesn't pass exactly the same bill down to every single letter, there is no bill. It is just a subterfuge and nobody's going to stand for that."

Sampson's strategy is reliant upon Paterson. Only he can call the Assembly back into extraordinary session, and he said Thursday that he sees no point in doing so.

Dan Weiller, a spokesman for Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, said of the Senate situation: "The Assembly has passed these bills."

"I have not heard the Speaker's comments," Senator Smith replied when asked. "And I would only say that we are hopeful that the governor will bring both houses back on Monday so that we can handle the business of the state as Senator Sampson has outlined."

Meanwhile, there is no desire for assembly members to return. "Hopefully, if we have to come back," Assemblyman Rory Lancman, a Queens Democrat who voted for reauthorizing mayoral control, told me, "it's not going to be because of the incompetence of any other branch or institution of government."

As it currently exists, Lancman said, the department is "very similar to a public authority," and his bill would require the oversight mandated under the city charter for things like procurement contracts. While the bill's memo states explicitly that "this law does not address the fundamental  tenets  of  mayoral control;  rather, it is intended to fill a gap in existing law by clarifying oversight of the Department of Education," Lancman said it's a different side of the same coin.

"I think you're going to see matching mayoral control with mayoral accountability," he said. The bill remains before the education committee.

Lancman predicted Bloomberg and his surrogates will have a rough time dealing with this issue before the legislature, both in the Assembly and the Senate.

"I think that was a little up-ended this week," Lancman said, referring to a heated hearing. "There were people who were allies of the mayor who were very, very tough with Joel Klein. And in the Assembly, it's a very, very difficult sell for the mayor to get the current system of mayoral control renewed as is."

And what about Senate Republicans?

"He got a very hard time," Lancman said. "I think the mayor will have a hard time getting someone like Frank Padavan or Marty Golden to sign on something that gives him too much power."

Lancman expressed sentiments similar to Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver: that the battle will mostly be waged over how much role to give the Panel for Education Policy. That 13-member group replaced the Board of Education, but the majority of its members are appointed by the mayor.

"That is the main issue which the mayor's going to draw a line in the sand on," Lancman said. "He will argue that if he has to go through a panel where he doesn't have a majority, that's not mayoral control."

And now there's a bill kicking around, introduced by Assemblyman Rory Lancman and supported by State Senator John Sampson, which would require the Commission on Judicial Nomination to forward along "all well-qualified" applicants to the governor for nominating, getting away from what Lancman said was the "arbitrary" number of seven. But the measure advances without the support of several key legal groups.

Bernice Leber, president of the New York State Bar Association and an attorney at the firm of Arent Fox, said there were "very serious problems" with the bill, and wrote Lancman a letter after he and Sampson unveiled the bill at a press conference. (Video below)

"Rather than hastily reform laws in ways that could be challenged, which no one wants to see, it is critically important that adequate time be given for review and comment by the public, the State Bar and other good government groups," Leber wrote.

"It actually doesn't make any sense at all," said Dennis Hawkins, executive director of the Fund for Modern Courts. "As written, it will not necessarily increase the number of people who are referred to the governor. As written, it says the commission should pass on all well-qualified individuals. They could pass on one name, instead of seven."

Lancman's bill is currently being reviewed by the Assembly Judiciary Committee. Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith and several other senators raised concerns about judicial nominating when the process to replace Judith Kaye got underway. Speaker Sheldon Silver remained mum, and according to a spokesman does not have a position on the Lancman bill.

Lancman said the bill is a start, and he looked forward to working with all interested parties moving forward.

State Lawmakers Unveil Legislation Reforming Court Of Appeals Nomination System from NYAD25 on Vimeo.

"I've been governor for nine and a half months," Mr. Paterson jokingly told the crowd at the Town Hall Theater on Jan. 15. "And it feels like it's been 9 1/2 Weeks."

In the subsequent weeks, many Democrats have taken to another characterization.

"The words ‘shit show' are being thrown around a lot," said one Democratic operative.

Mr. Paterson's admitted mismanagement of the Senate appointment and his bleak but sometimes inconsistent rhetoric about the budget have alienated the governor from his allies and angered the state's most powerful players.

Legislators in Albany see him as weak and erratic. Members of Congress feel spurned by the way he led them on in the Senate-seat sweepstakes. The Kennedy family thinks his handling of the situation helped snuff out the future of their brightest light. The hospital workers union is running a television advertising campaign-featuring a blind man-to attack his character and discredit his budget. Saturday Night Live is turning him into a caricature of ineptitude. The New York Post has taken to calling him, without condition, a liar. Mayor Michael Bloomberg is pushing him on education.

Assembly Speaker Shelly Silver is defying him on tax policy. And all the while, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo-well, he's just waiting.

"There's nobody on his side," said Joe Mercurio, a political consultant.

"He didn't win any friends by not consulting with or uniting the political leadership of New York behind his choice," said Assemblyman Rory Lancman, a Queens Democrat, referring to the selection of Kirsten Gillibrand as U.S. Senator.

"Politically, the governor seems to have gone out of his way a number of times to stick his finger in the eye of the people in the Legislature who want to support him and who want him to succeed."

Mr. Paterson is clearly aware that the grace period that accompanied his sudden, post-Spitzer elevation to the state's highest office is over.

Speaking to reporters after a press conference at the Council on Foreign Relations on Feb. 2, Mr. Paterson responded to a question about the 1199 S.E.I.U. ads running on television and depicting him as a heartless enemy of the sick.

"I have absolutely no problem with their ads," said Mr. Paterson, speaking in measured tones, with his hands placed on a wooden podium. "I think they are articulating correctly the feelings of people around this state. But the question is, ‘Where are the leaders right now?' If anybody thinks that this is an opportune time to take advantage of me, it is not, because this issue is not about me. This issue is about the welfare of the people that live in this state. And I'm the last person standing warning us that we will be in economic crisis, if not bankruptcy, if we don't act now. I'm going to keep saying it. Whatever happens to me is immaterial next to what will happen to 19 million people in this state." 

But already, there is much talk across the state about what will come of Mr. Paterson.

As of Feb. 3, Democratic operatives and elected officials were trafficking in rumors that Mr. Paterson might be contemplating not running in 2010.

"There is a tremendous physical and psychological toll being imposed on him, and next year there will be a heated campaign that without question will be contested in the general and maybe in the primary," said one Democratic elected official. "And maybe it's something that he doesn't want to pursue. Or at least they have begun the conversation of how difficult it is going to be next year, that if it's difficult this year, it's going to be more difficult by multiples next year."

Whether true or a creation of Mr. Paterson's enemies, who suddenly seem to be legion, the rumor is potentially problematic because it is credible.

"The problem is less his standing today," the elected official added. "There is plenty of time for him to recover, but the problem he faces is that nobody has any confidence that he has the skills to recover."

"The governor has made it clear repeatedly that he intends to run in 2010," said Errol Cockfield, a spokesman for Mr. Paterson. He added, "New Yorkers are looking to this governor to address the most severe fiscal crisis that the state has ever faced, and throughout his term in office, he has been sounding the same note about the need for the state to get its fiscal house in order. He's led on that repeatedly."

"People in Albany tend to overreact to both positive spin and to negative spin," said State Senator Eric Schneiderman, who advised Mr. Paterson during the governor's Senate days in his successful coup against Marty Connor, the former minority leader. "I saw people going from being the most merciless suck-ups imaginable to Eliot Spitzer to being the most sanctimonious denouncers of Eliot Spitzer. You know, we all of us go through this process. David, Eliot, all of us have strengths and weaknesses."

Mr. Paterson can still charm a crowd, particularly one composed of people outside the Albany bubble.

He displayed his strengths, an impressive command of facts and figures and a self-effacing sense of humor, during a talk about fiscal policy to the Council on Foreign Relations on the afternoon of Feb. 2.

"I was extremely impressed by his mastery of some very difficult issues," said Ted Sorensen, a former speechwriter for John F. Kennedy, who was in the audience.

But people who have more exposure to Mr. Paterson tend to focus more on his sometimes maddening tendency to fail to return phone calls, back out on promises and, lately-as when he said he didn't know who in his office was trashing Ms. Kennedy to reporters-contradict the word of even his closest staffers.

"Being governor means that people kiss your ass, and there are a lot of things people aren't willing to say about you," said one Democratic operative. "But as you get weaker, people's willingness to say how David Paterson lied to them or was otherwise baffling, I'm sure that spreads. That is the moment that we're in."

And there doesn't appear to be any sign that the pressure on the governor will relent, or that anyone will step up to help him out-least of all the people who benefit from his floundering.     

The greatest potential beneficiary of Mr. Paterson's vulnerability is Mr. Cuomo, who is widely regarded as the default front-runner for governor should the current holder of that position flame out before next year's election.

Mr. Cuomo ran for governor once before-against former comptroller Carl McCall, the first African-American gubernatorial nominee-to disastrous effect. This time, he is being much more careful and much less obviously ambitious about whatever designs he may have on replacing the first black governor.

"Cuomo's play is to watch, and to prepare for reelection," said Democratic consultant Hank Sheinkopf, who worked for Mr. Cuomo's Democratic opponents in 2002 and in the 2006 attorney general's race and reveled in calling him "Andy."

"If it appears in any way that he's putting a stumbling block before the governor, he's going to be in trouble," Mr. Sheinkopf said. "But every stumble Paterson makes on his own makes Cuomo more viable for governor. He just has to let Paterson stumble on his own."

Mr. Paterson has few safe ports.   

Mr. Bloomberg, who has both the standing and means to provide political cover for the governor, now seems distinctly disinclined to do so.

The mayor, who said especially kind things about Caroline Kennedy during the Senate-appointment process, called the leaks accusing her of dropping out due to concerns about her taxes, her housekeeper and her marriage "as good as an example of cheap, dirty politics as you could ever find. And I thought it was reprehensible. I have no idea where it came from."

Most reporters who received the calls had a pretty good idea, and when they subsequently asked Mr. Paterson about it, he denied the leak came from his office while simultaneously admitting that "there have been leaks coming from my administration during this entire process of choosing a senator."

Meanwhile, the mayor has blamed Mr. Paterson's proposed budget cuts for potential layoffs in the city and called the governor's reductions in education spending "wrong" and "very devastating to the future of our city, our state and our country."

(Bloomberg spokesman Matthew M. Gorton said in a statement: "The Mayor is sympathetic to the situation the Governor is in and he applauds the Governor for making tough choices and aggressively confronting the State's budget problems. But our job is to explain the impact of the Governor's budget on New York City, and from our perspective, this budget, from education to revenue sharing, is not fair. We can separate the policy from the personalities.")

On television, viewers around the state are watching ads in which an apparently blind man faces the camera and asks the legally blind governor, "Why are you doing this to me?"
"It's with real heavy heart that we end up in this place," said Kevin Finnegan, political director for 1199 S.E.I.U., which is funding the ads. "We're quite shocked, really, at the way he's approached the budget deficit and hope he will come around."

Mr. Paterson's allies sound pretty heavy-hearted, too.
"I do support the governor," said State Senator Bill Perkins.  "That's one thing. But now you're talking about the budget process, that's another thing."

And Mr. Silver is showing no intention of backing down in a budget fight with Mr. Paterson over whether to include a personal income tax for the state's wealthiest residents.

Mr. Paterson has wavered on the issue. First he called it an "addictive" last resort to be avoided, then he suggested it couldn't be avoided, and then, on Monday at the Council on Foreign Relations event, returned to his initial hard line.
"I don't think that taxing the rich is the best way to go right now," he said.

The following morning, on Feb. 3, Mr. Silver made an apparent show of strength and argued that the hike, which he has consistently supported, should be permanent.
Mr. Paterson, for his part, is at least outwardly confident about his ability to persevere.

"You have to keep working, you have to keep trying," Mr. Paterson told reporters after an event in Hyde Park last week. "You have to keep doing what's best, and if you conduct yourself ethically, I think over a period of time people see that there are periods when large amounts of publicity change the polls back one way or the other. But it's who is able to perform over a long period of time, which is what I'll try to do."

He emails:

“The Governor's budget does unfairly hurt New York City and we need to fight to fix that, but the alternative shouldn't be to make it harder for working New Yorkers to buy the basics by raising regressive sales taxes. The City could just as easily ask Albany for permission to raise the City's personal income tax, which is a progressive tax based on one's ability to pay."

During his nearly 90-minute budget presentation to reporters, the mayor said he wanted to raise the city's sales tax rather than income tax because he expects the state to raise income taxes.

 More on the mayor's budget coming soon.

Two blocks away, Newell's opponent, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, had a fleet of seven vans, which volunteers were driving all over the district to distribute literature that touted endorsements from two local papers: The Villager and Downtown Express. (Both are owned by Community Media, L.L.C.)

In the three blocks between Newell and Silver's campaign headquarters, I ran into three three Assembly members (Rory Lancman, Cathy Nolan and Audrey Pheffer) and four volunteers, all handing out literature for Silver.

Apparently more was needed.

"I need to take literature to Grand and Clinton," said one Silver volunteer, referring to the intersection where Newell had been speaking with churchgoers.

"You can take van four," replied Patrick van Keerbergen, chief of staff to Assemblyman Brian Kavanagh of Manhattan (who, somewhat ironically, ousted freshman legislator Sylvia Friedman in 2006 by claiming she was too closely tied to Assembly leadership).

It's an uphill climb to unseat one of the most powerful legislators in Albany--one of the "three men in a room" who control most of the money and set the agenda. Silver was first elected in 1976; he has been speaker since 1994. The sphinx-like Democrat has come to represent much of what is wrong with Albany, where transparency is not highly valued. He also has built a formidable operation that makes it difficult for anyone to run against him (in fact, no one has in many years.)

He prefers to operate quietly. (At the Democratic National Convention in Denver when I said I was writing about his race, Silver asked me, politely, "Why don't you write about somebody else?" During another interview in Denver, the Bronx Democratic County Leader Jose Rivera, told me he was endorsing Silver "because I've known him for over 25 years and he has not changed.")

Newell and his small band of volunteers were certainly outnumbered and out-machined. But then again, winning isn't really the point, because it's never been considered likely that he will.

Instead, Newell is using his relative success--he's actually out-paced Silver in fund-raising in the 11-day pre-primary filing--to apply pressure to the speaker.

Newell is framing this all as the start of a long process. Standing outside St. Mary's Church, he said, "I'm running to get the most votes in this election. That said, there's no question we've already brought change. We've already taken on Albany. There's no question about that. And people are scared."

Those scared people, Newell said, are thinking, "Wow, a 33-year-old community organizer can put together a campaign that is going to rock Sheldon Silver with his $3 million in his account, and $8 million in his Speaker's P.A.C. or whatever it is that he's got."

"If we're successful, you're going to see forty or fifty challengers to incumbents in 2010, in both parties," Newell said, adding, "I don't think there's any doubt we had a role in that."

Silver's members—whose staff and budgets Silver controls—say Silver has been more responsive to their needs and legislative ideas than he once was. They also say, seriously, that he unfairly bears the brunt for the public's misunderstanding of how Albany really works.

Pheffer, who represents part of Queens, stood outside Silver's campaign office and told me, "Some of the criticisms of Assembly Speaker Silver, we take it personally."

Also spotted briefly on Grand Street was the third Democrat in the primary, attorney Luke Henry. Dressed in jeans and a white dress shirt, he walked north along Clinton Street, past Delancey Street, into an area where there was notably less campaigning. When asked about speculation that he is associated with Silver, and only in the race to siphon votes from Newell, Henry said the rumors are "malicious" and "ludicrous." He added, "It can't just be anti-Silver. Where's the housing programs? Where's the senior programs?" He walked up to a group of senior citizens and thrust literature into their hands.

As he spoke, a young woman with a blue skirt and armful of Silver campaign literature walked into the building.

Before leaving Newell, I had the chance to chat with filmmaker Justin Sullivan, who is making a documentary about the race, with Newell as protagonist. Sullivan followed Newell, an Obama delegate, to Denver, and said he was in Newell's apartment when the candidate made his first campaign phone calls, and when he tried on his first suit. I asked Sullivan if his film about a young, smart, underdog candidate would be anything like Street Fight, a documentary about Cory Booker's brutal, failed campaign against then-Newark Mayor Sharpe James, which helped launch Booker's successful bid for the office four years later.

"It's like Street Fight, but with blogs, emails and civilized phone calls. Silver is civilized," he said.