Spitzer, a man that was, a man that still is. On cuomo, he says:

Spitzer on Cuomo: He’s Driven, Often by Politics

He questions whether the candidate has the will to stand up to powerful interests. He faults him for failing to aggressively take on Wall Street. And he is not sure that he will vote for him for governor this fall, saying he wants to see “who else will be in the race.”

Related

• Times Topics: Eliot Spitzer |Andrew M. Cuomo

In an unusually candid and sometimes biting assessment of his successor as attorney general, former Gov. Eliot Spitzer portrayed Andrew M. Cuomoas a man whose decisions have often been driven by political considerations and whose worldview has largely been shaped by the culture of Albany.

During an interview with The New York Times on Thursday, Mr. Spitzer also shed new light on the private resentments and clashes that have strained the relationship between the two men, both Democrats, including Mr. Cuomo’s 2007 investigation of the use of the State Police by Mr. Spitzer’s aides to gather information on a political rival.

Asked about Mr. Cuomo’s reputation as a “tough guy,” Mr. Spitzer responded: “Toughness is not the issue. It’s easy to be tough if the selection of one’s target is driven by politics. The real test is, do you take on the battles that have been unpopular and perhaps seem impossible to win but are important to take on?”

Richard Bamberger, a spokesman for Mr. Cuomo, said, “The attorney general’s record, credibility and honor speak for themselves, as do Mr. Spitzer’s.” Mr. Cuomo has yet to declare a candidacy for governor, but he is widely expected to run.

About Mr. Cuomo’s approach toward the financial industry, for example, Mr. Spitzer suggested that Mr. Cuomo had issued attention-getting reports but not had a lasting impact.

“There’s still a little bit of a gap between headlines and reality in the areas of pursuit,” Mr. Spitzer said, adding that he would have liked “more intervention and deeper intervention, by which I mean, more granular, harder work, that would have taken a bit more time, and would have been, frankly, a bit more disruptive to Wall Street.”

Mr. Spitzer, who resigned in 2008 after revelations that he had patronized a prostitution ring, has embarked on a rehabilitation campaign and has been speaking out more forcefully, especially about financial industry issues, and writing a column for Slate magazine. But he has generally refrained from critiquing New York political figures.

Mr. Spitzer agreed to the interview to discuss the challenges of making the transition from attorney general to governor. His remarks were all the more striking because virtually no other prominent Democrat has criticized Mr. Cuomo. If elected governor in November, Mr. Cuomo would be only the second elected attorney general, after Mr. Spitzer, to have served in both jobs in this state.

Mr. Spitzer, who speaks in lengthy paragraphs, appeared to be taking pains to use diplomatic language about Mr. Cuomo and to praise his political skills, even as he spoke of the tensions that have erupted between the two men in recent years.

But again and again, his skepticism came through about whether the attorney general, if elected governor, will take unpopular positions and confront entrenched interests. That theme is likely to be a line of attack this fall by whichever Republican runs against Mr. Cuomo, who, for example, has a close relationship with one of the state’s most powerful unions, Service Employees International Union 1199.

“I think the issue is, will he have the stomach to pick political fights or to pick fights that will have negative political consequences?” the former governor asked.

Mr. Spitzer spoke in some detail about the private confrontation between the two men after an investigation in 2007 by Mr. Cuomo found that the Spitzer administration had improperly used state troopers to gather information about travels on state aircraft by the Senate majority leader, Joseph L. Bruno. That clash is also described in a new book, “Rough Justice: The Rise and Fall of Eliot Spitzer,” by Peter Elkind.

Mr. Spitzer suggested that Mr. Cuomo gave Mr. Bruno a pass.

“Andrew wrote a report that was designed to entirely whitewash one side of it, and tee up the other side as a major issue,” Mr. Spitzer said. “And he lost all sense of both proportion, and I think it was driven by politics.”

After Mr. Spitzer’s aides began to challenge Mr. Cuomo’s conclusions, Mr. Spitzer said, Mr. Cuomo threatened to reopen the investigation if the governor’s staff criticized him — a threat that Mr. Spitzer called extortion and that Mr. Cuomo has denied.

Mr. Spitzer made his reputation as an innovative and zealous (some would say overzealous) pursuer of Wall Street wrongdoing. He faulted his successor for dropping one of his signature cases: the lawsuit seeking repayment of some of the $140 million in compensation awarded to Richard A. Grasso, the former chairman of the New York Stock Exchange. An appellate court ruled in Mr. Grasso’s favor, and Mr. Cuomo declined to appeal.

Mr. Cuomo’s solicitor general, Barbara Underwood, said Saturday, “Once the state’s top court unanimously ruled for Grasso on a critical element of the case, we determined any further appeal would have been futile and a waste of resources.”

Mr. Spitzer disagreed. “The one where we had unambiguous jurisdiction, which was the Grasso pay issue, where he didn’t appeal an aberrant, an aberrant appellant case that should have been appealed, he had an automatic right of appeal; he should have done it,” the former governor said. “He didn’t. That’s deeply troubling to me because that’s a case where an executive at a not-for-profit was paid $140 million.”

Related

• Times Topics: Eliot Spitzer |Andrew M. Cuomo

Mr. Spitzer appeared to be drawing a contrast between his office’s attempt to take on Mr. Grasso with Mr. Cuomo’s issuing of a report last year detailing the bonuses that executives received at banks getting federal bailout money, which Mr. Spitzer called mere “information gathering.”

At one point in the interview, Mr. Spitzer was asked whether there was a governor he had hoped to emulate. He praised Nelson A. Rockefeller, a Republican who served four terms, for “having great aspirations” and being “a great builder.” He also cited Mr. Rockefeller’s elected successor, Hugh L. Carey, a Democrat, for his leadership during New York’s fiscal crisis.

When it was pointed out that he had failed to mention Mario Cuomo, Andrew’s father and another fellow Democrat, Mr. Spitzer replied:

“Oh, look, Governor Cuomo was a spectacular governor in terms of his intellectual leadership of the state and will be remembered for his oratorical skills, and I say this not to diminish his administration of the state. I think it’s harder to see a specific, substantive accomplishment in terms of the SUNY system or physical development that he leaves behind. He might bridle at that, but I don’t think that I’m speaking beyond the sort of traditional take on his administration.”

Asked how Andrew Cuomo would differ from his father, Mr. Spitzer said: “I don’t want to get into that swamp. I think his dad has been acknowledged as one of the greatest orators and deepest thinkers that we’ve had on the political stage in many years. I don’t think Andrew aspires to be that. I think Andrew aspires to be somebody of action.”

Mr. Spitzer was noncommittal, if polite, about whether he would vote for Mr. Cuomo for governor.

“This statement could be misinterpreted,” Mr. Spitzer said. “I don’t know who the candidates are going to be. I think it’s fair to presume he will be the Democratic nominee. I do want to see who else will be in the race. I don’t say that to slight him. He hasn’t answered the hard questions yet about how he will govern the state, so I think it’s fair to say, ‘Let’s wait and see.’ ”

 SAM ROBERTS