To be fair, the New Amsterdam News is not a Brooklyn paper, it is based in Manhattan, and has most of its readership in Manhattan and a lot of it up in Harlem. I rarely ever see it in Brooklyn. Possibly Yassky thinks his time is spent better talking to the Brooklyn local papers like the The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, The Haitian Times, the Brookyn Paper .etc

If you are trying to portray Yassky as running a racist campaign, this isn't the way to do it.

Look.

If I wanted to say that Yassky was running a racist campaign, I would do so in as many words.

So please do not wilfully misinterpret and misrepresent what I am saying here.

Which is simply that Yassky's rhetoric does not match his actions.

End of story.

When you make statements like:

"And how seriously can one take the "we're all in this together" claims when that proposed togetherness does not include the time necessary for an interview with the leading black newspaper?"

It frankly sounds like you are accusing Yassky of running a racist campaign. Why else would you go out of your way to call out a white candidate for refusing to talk to a black newspaper? You can say you are just accusing him of bad campaign strategy, or morally wrong campaign strategy or something. If you think David Yassky is a racist, or running a racist campaign, just come out and say it. I'm sure some people probably think that he is. I saw the Times article quoting Nick Perry on withdrawing, and Nick won't even consider Yassky among those he'd possibly endorse, because Yassky is white and he wants the seat to be CBC. He has disqualified Yassky because of his skin color, which I think is wrong. You could argue that some of the other three candidates haven't always made the best efforts to court white media outlets. It works both ways.

I think that Yassky is just catering to where he has the strongest base, and he'd be stupid not to do that. The people who are going to vote for him are not in all likelihood going to be regular readers of the Amsterdam News. When you are a candidate and you have limited time and resources you have to make decisions like this.

If Yassky says "we're all in this together" you should accept at face value that he has honest intentions. I'll say again that this race should not be contested on the race issue. Yassky being white should be besides the point. I don't think Yassky is the best candidate in the race. But if I thought he was, I wouldn't care about his heritage or his skin color. He is too moderate for the district and too tied into big business. But he is not a racist so far as I can tell. There are plenty of good reasons to not vote for Yassky, but the single worst reasons IMO would be because a) you don't think he's black enough, and b)you think he's running a racist campaign.

I am not saying that Yassky is running a racist campaign, and I resent your repeated implication to the contrary. You might try to apply the same presumption of intellectual honesty you demand for the councilman's statements to mine. Instead of being downright naive enough to take the statement of a politician at face value, try extending that courtesy to a blogger, if you could.

That said, you're perfectly within your rights to declare that considering race as a factor in a black-majority district is illegitimate. That would not change the fact that you are wrong, however.

The issue here, to be perfectly clear and hopefully break through the shell of frail tautologies you're hiding behind, is this: Yassky is running in a majority-minority district as a white person, and does not seem to be all that interested in courting the black majority of voters. That is the implication of this article and the resulting post. I don't consider that racist per se, but a matter, as you correctly note, of campaign convenience; but that does not change the fact that Yassky's strategy from start to finish is not concerned with the black majority of the district. His refusal to speak directly to the AN makes that point very clear. Strawmen of what other candidates do and do not do have no bearing here, either.

You may very well be uncomfortable with the fact that race is an issue in this contest, and I understand that; a lot of people are, myself included. But that discomfort will not make it go away, so we might as well discuss it. It might also be helpful if you chose not to belittle the factors other voters take into account, or to set yourself up as the arbiter of what and what does not matter. The circumstances of Nick Perry's withdrawal are for him to decide, not you, and it might be wise to extend some basic courtesy to the man, and not to mock what is a genuine concern.

I know we disagree about Yassky anyway, but I would never put any creedence in anything I read in the Amsterdam News. As is also true with the Jewish Press or the New York Post, you can trace the contracts which've lead to every line in every story. I wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing about Yassky refusing to talk is either a lie or misleading; and, even if true, there may be perfectly excusable reasons for such a refusal.

Bouldin said:

"Yassky is running in a majority-minority district as a white person, and does not seem to be all that interested in courting the black majority of voters. "

This is the problem I have, you seem to be making a point of looking at Yassky's actions and reading specific conclusions into those actions, and in doing so it implies you have an agenda. How do you KNOW Yassky is not all that interested in courting black voters? Have you been down to his HQ and looked at his schedule of events he's attended? Have you read his mind? You read that he didn't talk to a paper most people don't care about, The Amsterdam News-- that happens to be black owned-- and you jump all over his case assuming his motives for not talking to them. You won't even consider the possibility that maybe he just didn't have time that day, or that maybe he thought the paper's editors wouldn't give him favorable coverage. Could have been the case you know.

You seem very eager IMO to push the idea of Yassky deliberately not courting black voters-- which I equate to pushing the idea of Yassky running a racist campaign. You are looking for reasons, searching out articles, to back up a stereotypical perception of Yassky. It is like you want to demonize Yassky because he's white and he dares, DARES, to run in the CD 11th.

Any political strategist would tell Yassky, looking at the race, that he needs to spend the most time in the places where he will get the most votes. You act like Yassky should be spending all his time in places like east harlem and kissing the ass of papers like the Amsterdam News, as opposed to campaigning in neighborhoods where he might actually get votes. Yassky campaigning in east harlem does about as much good as Kerry would have done campaigning in Utah. Sure it would be nice, and politically correct, if Yassky spent part of every day from now until the primary knocking on doors in east harlem. It doesn't mean it makes practical sense and it doesn't mean Yassky's a racist, or running a racist campaign, if he doesn't. I mean its not like I've seen much of Yvette Clarke or Carl Andrews in Park Slope either. They are doing exactly what Yassky is doing, which is campaigning in their strongholds where they know they have a lot of potential support. They are not running a racist campaign for doing so, and neither is Yassky.

So why can't you just accept that Yassky, and all the other candidates for that matter, need to be doing what they can to win the race, and that being politically correct all the time just isn't possible.

You're the one who writes one flaming diatribe after another defending Yassky, while claiming not to support him, but I'm the one with the agenda.

Sure, I'll buy that.

You also, with all due respect, are breathtakingly naive. Maybe a politician running for office didn't have time to get his name in the newspaper?

See the fallacy? Or is it just too obvious?

Yassky's strategy is well known, open like a book, and yes, I am aware of it. It's based, very simply, at grabbing a large enough slice of primary voters to top four (now, three, and soon perhaps two or even one) black candidates. Because there is no runoff, the winner of the primary normally wins the general election. That's not exactly a secret in the political class. You may not have heard of it, but maybe you aren't paying attention. It's also the calculus he was going to employ in the 2005 district attorney's race, before Mark Peters jumped in.

The one who is going to have to accept something here is you; and that is simply that race will play a role in this election, no matter how much it pains you. This because, again with all due respect, many people in the 11th district employ a different calculation of their interests than you seem to be comfortable with. And that is not going to change, no matter how much you rail about it.

bouldin, if you were running for congress in the CD 11th in a four or five person race, you would be doing exactly the same thing Yassky is doing. He's trying to win the only way that he can win, whats wrong with that? I wouldn't expect less from him or any of the other candidates.

My problem is it seems you HATE Yassky because he's white and running in this race, I don't understand it. I don't support Yassky but I don't hate him for running. I think your brand of politics is divisive and turns people off.

...am I now?

As to my brand of politics being divisive, again, I'm not the one arguing that anyone who does not share my views is either stupid, racist, irrelevant or driven by personal bias. You are.

I haven't claimed anything of the sort. I have strongly expressed my personal opinions just as you have, and thats all.

Racial politics is obviously a factor in the 11th CD race. My issue, and it is only my opinion, is that you have not expressed any issue with any of the other three candidates campaigning for votes in black neighborhoods. Yet you have this big problem with Yassky campaigning for votes in white neighborhoods. Carl Andrews and Yvette Clarke seem to be only campaigning in specific areas. Chris Owens seems to be the only candidate doing much campaigning in the same areas as Yassky. So why aren't you criticizing Andrews and Clarke? They are doing the very same demographic targeting of voters that Yassky is, yet when they do it are you saying its okay?

In an ideal world every candidate would campaign in every area of the district all the time, but this isn't an ideal world. Its a world where candidates have a limited time to campaign and need to do very specific things to bring out the specific combinations of supporters that will allow them to win. Yassky is not a racist if he does these things, and neither is Clarke or Andrews...

This is what amuses me about you Yassky supporters: all the hue and cry about race not mattering, how it's really really mean and unfair to note his electoral strategy, yar yar yar, and then you turn around and embrace an ends justify the means approach for his campaign, like campaigning for votes only in white neighborhoods.

As I pointed out in The Yassky Exception, yes, there is something deeply wrong with that. The fact that his supporters - like you - can't see that does not negate it; quite to the contrary.

First of all, don't call me a Yassky supporter when I have specifically told you I am not. Do you regularly lie about other bloggers who tell you things about themselves, and you refuse to believe them? You are way too cynical. Not only do you refuse to believe people even when they come out and tell you who they support (and I would bet I have known and supported Chris Owens longer than you have by the way, I've known him since the early days of the Dean campaign), but you automatically go out and assume the worst possible motives for people. You assume that Yassky must be running a racist campaign because he's targeting the people most likely to vote for him. You refuse to accept that he's just doing the exact same thing that Clarke and Andrews are doing which is finding and persuading the people who really will vote for them.

Bouldin you have a double standard. Why is it okay for some candidates to target voters demographically and not others? I don't like some of Yassky's views, I really don't like the real estate interests that are financially backing him, and I don't like that he just moved to the eleventh district. But the ways you attack him are ugly and unfair, and you bring down the dialogue of the whole campaign into the gutter. I'd say the same thing if you were saying those things about Chris or any of the other candidates. I will say it again loud and clear-- there is NOTHING WRONG with demographically targeting voters. It is done all the time, and you are hypocritical as hell if you really think it is okay when black candidates do it, but not when a white candidate does it.

I say you're a Yassky supporter because I've reviewed the threads on the topic and have seen how you spin every scenario to his benefit. You've left, what, between ten and twenty comments attacking any and all arguments critical of Yassky? As this thread alone shows, you're quite invested in defending the man; normally, critics find critical things to say, and don't leave novellas in someone's favor. Just a thought.

As to the assertion that it does not make a difference if a white guy is running in a voting rights district because he thinks the black vote will be split, you can repeat it until you're blue in the face, but that is simply not acceptable. The ends do not always justify the means; not for Democrats worthy of the name, at least.

That's what's ugly, hypocritical and unfair, not the reporting on it. And I think you'll find most blacks agree with that assessment.

Lastly, the personal attacks are getting to be just a bit over the top. You may think that terms such as racist, hypocrite, and liar are acceptable forms of discourse, but I do not. And I suggest you change your vernacular, as of right now.

And I suggest you believe people when they say who they are supporting. I tend to defend people who I think are being unfairly attacked, and you have been unfairly attacking Yassky. That doesn't mean I support him.

You may attack my language but you are the one who is mean spirited and looking to talk about the CD 11th race in the crassest possible terms. You just can't accept that all four of the candidates may be running because they think they each can do the best for the district, and that all four candidates are running to win, and doing everything they can TO win. You blast Yassky with accusations on how he is running his campaign and yet you have no proof, none whatsoever, so you look at little things like him not talking to the Amsterdam News as some sort of proof of something, when it is not.

OK, fine, so now I'm mean-spirited for having the bad taste of mentioning the elephant in the room, namely that your boy Yassky is trying to take a black seat by working and hoping for a split black vote.

Yeah, I'm really, really mean, all right. Downright nasty. Sorry to be impolite enough to mention, gasp, icky stuff like race and representation.

Whatever.

The 11th CD is not a "black seat" The Voting Rights Act wasn't meant to designate it a "black seat", it was meant to make a district where people who are in ethnic minorities would have a strong voice. Having a strong voice doesn't have to mean a person of their particular ethnicity/race is the representative. It often works out that way of course. Yassky has every right to run for that seat, and every right to try and say that he is best able to represent the views and the needs of the district. So don't act as if it is somehow morally wrong for a white person to run for a seat in that or any other district. No Congress can uniformly declare that one district or another district is reserved for representation by one race. The very idea is absurd.

By the way, I'm petitioning for *Chris Owens* on Saturday with the DFNYC folks. You should join us. I'll even give you a Chris Owens button

Perhaps you're morally redeemable.

While you're out there, I suggest you bounce your theories of 'race doesn't matter' or 'there is no such thing as a black district' off the black people you meet.

Might be an eye-opener.

At Vann's big meeting, there were representatives from two of the three minority candidates in attendance:

Major Owens (Chris's dad) was there.

John Flateau (Yvette Clarke's campaign manager) was there. Yvette was also just endorsed by Nick Perry.

Not there was Carl Andrews, or anybody representing Andrews. Which could lead one to speculate that since those in attendance know they aren't likely to get Yassky to drop out, that most of the discussion might have centered on getting Carl Andrews to quit.

After all Major wasn't there to talk about getting his son to quit, and Yvette just got a big endorsement, so she didn't send her campaign manager there to discuss her withdrawal.

I think the pressure is on Carl Andrews. Which could backfire, because Andrews' has jewish support which could go to Yassky if he is forced out.