New York's acting governor, David Patterson (who took over after Elliot Spitzer was arrested), has been resisting Obama's year-long pressure to step aside in 2010. Obama wants Andrew Cuomo to become the empire state's next governor.

Following Tuesday's election results, Patterson finally made up his mind - he's definitely running in 2010. <link> , Obama and Cuomo be damned . . .

The deciding factor? Obama's inability to help NJ Governor Corzine win a second term. Evidently Patterson's political calculus is that these by-elections ARE a referendum on Obamanism; Patterson's decision to run is essentially saying "I think having Obama in your corner is a bad thing".

Why is Obama so keen to dump a sitting democratic governor for the swaggering Andrew Cuomo? Cuomo, like John Corzine, has money connections out the wazoo, and was a mega-fund raiser for the white house in 2008. Patterson, not so much. (Spitzer was big on the contribution thing too)

For the record - please note that I haven't asked anyone to vote for Patterson, and I would be hard pressed to name any Patterson policies regarding New York's economy or school systems that have actually helped. In that regard, there are no differences between Spitzer, Patterson, and Cuomo.

And I can't even name the republican candidate for New York's governor. Is there one yet? Without reading his or her ideas, I'm not endorsing him either.

Will he, won't he? He did a fine job as mayor, so sure, why not?

I'm not sure reliance on Paterson's political acumen is strong evidence of Obama's lack of pull. The numbers show it plainly, however.

I did love Paterson's moment of candor, when he declared that NY has "a welfare-based economy". Though that probably isn't a recommendation for his policies.

Also, those SNL sketches redeem Armisen's dreadful Obama impression.