In the Right

It gets worse.

After opening by reminding any Democratic primary voter who'd never heard of him that he had once been a politician in Tennessee, Ford then proceeded to demonstrate further that he cared not what New York voters might think -- no, this exercise was going to be all about him:

And my appetite for public policy and changing it, and not only being a part of the conversation, but affecting it in a positive way, never diminished after 10 years in Congress. I've stayed active and engaged in the national conversation, in a far more limited way than I was when I was in elected office, through my role as chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, and even my role as a pundit, initially at Fox News -- I was there for a year and then switched to MSNBC about a year after. I stayed engaged and involved in the conversation. So that never diminished in any way.

So now he's told anybody reading this piece that he's got a healthy appetite for public policy (how hi-falutin'!) and "being part of the conversation;" that he was a congressman for 10 years (oh, great, exactly what voters are looking for -- a guy who, for a decade, was part of the problem); that he was chairman of something called "The Democratic Leadership Council" (well, at least it's got the word "Democratic" in the name); that he knows how to use the word "pundit;" that he was at FOX News (very, very bad) and then switched to MSNBC (what's that?).

That's all in the first paragraph of the interview.

The rest of the interview is taken up by similar garbage -- garbage that makes clear it really is all about Ford: We learn Ford has been teaching at Vanderbilt University (that's not in New York, it's in Tennessee), that he's been spending his time in New York at Merrill Lynch (oh, a Wall Street guy, eh? Excellent! Just what we're looking for in a Democratic candidate in 2010!), and that he's now a part of the Council on Foreign Relations (again, not a group generally recognized to offer much vote-drawing star power, except perhaps at a session of the U.N. General Assembly).

Then we learn that two days after the incumbent senator, Kirsten Gillibrand, was appointed to the seat, Ford contributed to her, without her even having to ask -- he did it as a favor for a friend. And then we learn that he often commutes to MSNBC via limousine, provided by the cable channel.

But the most ridiculous answer of all was Ford's answer to the simple question, "Jets or Giants?"

There's no way to fudge this answer. You've just got to choose one and stick with it. Be bold, be strong, dive in, prepare to take your lumps.

Instead, Ford refused to make a choice -- and then made matters worse: "I had breakfast about every morning when I am in town, or I should say, several mornings, at the Regency. I see my friends the Tisches. Steve Tisch is my close personal friend. I have been to more Giants games. I spent the holidays, I had lunch over the holidays with Woody Johnson. We met for the first time. I am happy for his team."

"Cringe inducing" comes to mind.

Rather than try to use support for a local sports team as a means to begin establishing common bonds with the common men and women he (says he) seeks to represent, he uses the opportunity to speak of his very, very, very rich, football-team-owning "close personal friend" and a lunch acquaintance.

He's not running to win votes from actual voters; with answers like that, he's running for a seat on the board of the Met, or the board of the New York Public Library, or some other such high-minded civic enterprise.

I was reminded of a profile interview I sat in on several years ago, where my client -- a candidate who'd never before run for significant public office, and who was still getting his sea legs -- did a pretty good job answering the reporter's questions, staying pretty close to the message points he and I had discussed, right up until the time the interview went off-script, and the reporter started asking wild card questions, the kind you can never prepare for (because they're wild cards).

Favorite food? Favorite hobby? Favorite book? Etc.

And then we got to "Favorite movie."

And my candidate responded, "Man Facing Southeast," at which point the reporter and I immediately locked eyes -- he, in delight, knowing he'd just uncovered something of value, though he knew not what; me, in terror, wondering what kind of Felliniesque artsy-fartsy foreign or independent flick this could possibly have been, and wondering what evil spirit could possibly have possessed my candidate at that very moment, causing him to blurt out that ridiculous answer.

"Umm ... 'Man Facing Southeast,'" I repeated. "What's that, a documentary about a guy standing in Philadelphia, gazing at Camden?" I asked, hopefully.

"No," he replied, too sternly for comfort, "it's an Argentine import that examines the nature of compassion, and why it's so foreign to us."

We just stared at one another, until the reporter and I couldn't hold it any longer, and both burst out laughing.

"Okay, off the record," I nodded to the reporter, seeking and obtaining his assent before going any further, "next time you're asked what's your favorite movie, perhaps you'd consider saying something like 'Gone with the Wind,' or 'The Sound of Music,' or 'Rocky,' or even 'Star Wars.' Really. 'Man Facing Southeast' isn't gonna help us much."

Yes, I used to be one of those cynical campaign operative types who holds firmly to the belief that a principal (that is, a candidate or even a party chairman -- are you reading this, Mr. Steele?) should never sit for an interview unless he's thought ahead of time about what he'd like to see in the newspaper the next day. Call me crazy, but it seems to me there's less to clean up when attention has been paid ahead of time.

Regarding the interview Ford gave The New York Times, one of two things must be true: Either Ford thought ahead of time about what he was going to say, and said it, or he did not.

If the former is true, he will not go very far should he choose to challenge Sen. Gillibrand; if the latter is true, it's evidence of an incompetence so deep as to be politically suicidal.

Only time will tell us which is the proper answer. But time will tell -- it always does.

Follow me on Twitter!