The NY-11 Democratic Primary to replace retiring Congressman Major Owens has become one of the most watched and most contested races locally and even, to some degree, nationally. Working Families Party, which frequently cross endorses Democrats and gets involved in races like this, has been paralyzed by this race and ultimately failed to endorse. A local Democratic Club, Independent Neighborhood Democrats, went through a virtual civil war over this race with much drama and shouting. Trickles of the drama surrounding this race have leaked out nationally partly due to
racial implications within the district. More blogging and more written articles have been generated regarding this single Congressional primary than any other NYC race this year. And more money will be spent on this one Congressional primary than any other in the nation, much of it ($1.2 million) spent by a single candidate.
When I first started writing about this race (I live in the district and personally know two of the candidates) I never imagined that what I wrote about my local Congressional race would be among my most read and most debated pieces. But that is how it turned out. In some ways this race has made my name as a local blogger. I think, as I watched a slew of 11th hour endorsements this week, I now understand why this one race has been one that has become almost an obsession.
Within this single primary there are represented four distinct sides of the Democratic party and the fight among these for sides locally is a clear microcosm of the fight over the soul of the Democratic Party nationally.
There are four candidates running (not counting the inconsequential Republican candidate...I once said that the Democrats could run a sponge cake in this district and the Republicans couldn't win, a line that has since been picked up by others). Those candidates are Chris Owens, son of the retiring Congressman, David Yassky, Yvette Clarke and Carl Andrews. This week three of those picked up coveted endorsements. Chris Owens received a visit from Jim Dean and a check for $5000 from Democracy for America (though the race has been so contentious they have not yet called this an endorsement). Yvette Clarke received the endorsement of John Murtha, uber-conservative, anti-choice Democrat whose one excellent stance is on withdrawal from Iraq. And David Yassky, who early in the campaign introduced himself as "the white candidate in the race," was endorsed by the NY Times, something my wife and I predicted MONTHS ago.
These three endorsements define these candidates perfectly. Chris Owens is the progressive, the new voice, the passionate liberal. As such the DFA almost-endorsement (hey, it came with money and a fundraiser) is no surprise. Chris was an early supporter of Howard Dean and has picked up practically every progressive endorsement in the country from DFA and Impeach PAC to Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders to John Conyers and Maxine Waters. Maryscott O'Connor of My Left Wing has called him "kick ass" (if I am remembering her wording correctly). Chris is the preacher for the progressives, able to articulate where we stand on so many issues with great clarity and passion. When DFA's local affiliate, DFNYC, endorsed Chris it was no surprise. What was a surprise was that the endorsement was made with a whopping 96% of the vote going for Chris. Chris has been the strongest advocate for choice, serving on the board of NARAL-NY and being endorsed by Planned Parenthood PAC. Chris has been one of the strongest advocates for the environment, standing up early and consistently against ill-conceived development in Brooklyn and receiving the Sierra Club endorsement. And Chris has been one of the earliest opponents of the Iraq War, marching in the giant protest marches just prior to the invasion. Chris Owens should be, and for some is, the poster child for today's progressive movement. This week's DFA check and visit from Jim Dean merely exemplifies this. I should note that what also exemplifies this is the fact that Chris has a large band of volunteers working for him but his campaign is chronically short of money, as is typical of grassroots campaigns. As such, this preacher for the progressives is a long shot to win, but with an influx of money from Jim Dean's fundraiser for him, hopefully he will be gaining. YOU, of course, could help if you want to see more progressive voices in Congress. Full disclosure: Chris is a friend of mine and I am one of his many volunteers. I have also used him as one of my defining candidates for what I call a "community candidate," a candidate whose dedication to the community is expressed not just in words or proposed legislation, but in action over time. Chris Owens also has broad support among Congressional Reps., having been endorsed by more than 20 sitting Congressmen, including the most liberal of Congressmen. That is more Congressional endorsements than all his opponents put together.
Yvette Clarke's endorsement by one of America's most conservative Democrats is also defining. Yvette is not as conservative as Murtha, but she is definitely the most conservative of the four running for this district. Her only core support base is from the traditionally conservative Caribbean community in Brooklyn, so on social issues she leans right. Her family has had close ties with New York State Republicans, including George Pataki. She is definitely a member of the Republicrat faction of the Democratic Party, though by no means at the extreme end of this group. To me her leaning more conservative than the other candidates is not her main flaw, however. What have been the worst aspects of her campaign are her frequent lies (she claimed that she graduated from Oberlin College but didn't, and claimed that in 2004 she received the NY Times endorsement for Congress but didn't, etc.) as well as a particularly nasty way her campaign has had of smearing other candidates. Yvette's solid support in the Caribbean community makes her the nominal frontrunner, but her inability to gain support outside of that community may severely limit her chances of winning. Her support is frequently described as being narrow, but deep.
David Yassky is the kind of Democrat who talks progressive but acts solidly pro-business. He really is the kind of guy most people are sick of around here because he stands for nothing solid...except himself. His campaign has been flooded with money, mostly from outside the district and largely from big business interests, particularly developers. He is the archetypal New York Times Democrat--wealthy, pro-business, hawkish and someone who begins from the idea of compromise. He is a triangulator. While the other candidates embrace compromise, they do not put compromise ahead of ideals. Yassky begins from the idea of compromise, often abandoning ideals and ceding the debate to the other side in his rush to cut a deal. His deals never accomplish much except forcing a few crumbs from developers or Republicans. His biggest accomplishment was to help write and get through Congress the Brady Bill while he was an aide for Chuck Schumer. This was indeed an acomplishment. He touts this up and down, but since then his accomplishments have been few and mostly minor. He is very much cut from the Chuck Schumer pattern. His hawkishness is most worrisome to me. He supports bombing Iran even as he wants us to consider withdrawing from Iraq. Yassky, who I know fairly well, used to support, and do respect, is in many ways defined by an arrogance that is well reflected by the NY Times' own arrogance. I once ran into a person who had had Yassky as a professor once. I asked him what he was like and he replied immediately, "arrogant." That arrogance lost him an endorsement when once the endorsement was made, he failed to show adequate respect to the person who had endorsed him and so he lost the endorsement of Thelma Davis. David Yassky is the epitome of the establishment Democrat who cannot understand why the Republicans keep winning when they themselves are adopting Republican positions and rhetoric. Yassky is not as conservative as Yvette Clarke on most issues, but he is definitely a triangulator.
The one guy who didn't get a big name endorsement this week was Carl Andrews. But he has already been defined by his long-standing devotion to the extremely corrupt Brooklyn Democratic machine. Andrews' former boss, Clarence Norman, was head of that machine...and is now in jail for corruption. Andrews was Norman's right hand man when Norman committed the crimes that put him in jail. Andrews has a solid record on Civil Rights and good support from labor, but he is typical of the old machine style Democrats whose goal is holding on to power locally, not on pushing through a real Democratic agenda. And as more and more revelations come out about the Clarence Norman machine, leading to more indictments, Carl Andrews may be indicted within the next year or so. Carl Andrews could have been one of the good guys, but either through choice or necessity, he allied himself with a corrupt machine and I suspect he will pay the price. We cannot afford to send someone so closely linked to corruption to Congress in these days of corrupt Halliburton Republicans.
I think in this race you have the four main strands of the Democratic Party, each with strengths and weaknesses. Chris Owens represents the passionate progressive with ideals and a vision for the future. Yvette Clarke represents the socially conservative Democrat, not so far to the right as her new supporter, John Murtha, but she is definitely leaning that way. David Yassky is a younger Chuck Schumer, triangulating his way towards higher and higher office, but always the darling of big money interests. And Carl Andrews is the old-style machine Democrat.
With such a clear microcosm of our national party's identity crisis, is it any wonder that the NY-11 Congressional primary is so important?