The race to replace Major Owens as the Congressional Rep. from Brooklyn's 11th Congressional district may start to get interesting. What is at stake in this race is not whether this district will be represented by a Dem or a Repub. Sorry to New York's Reds, but NY-11 is so solidly blue that the local Democratic Party machine could probably run a sponge cake and it would still beat any Republican candidate.

No, what is at stake is what kind of Democrat will represent us: a machine sponge cake, a reformer or what? In a sense, this race is about the identity of the Democratic Party with race, corruption and socially progressive issues being part of the mix.

So far the candidates have had one debate, sponsored by Brooklyn's reform club Lambda Independent Democrats and covered in the Feb. 4th issue of the Brooklyn Paper.

The cast of characters, which looks to be decreasing soon, includes the following:

Chris Owens: son of Major Owens and the darling of the progressive community, endorsed by Dennis Kucinich, Maxine Waters and Impeach PAC. Worries of a political "dynasty" and experience dog Chris, but Chris is the only candidate to come off leader-like and who stands out as a candidate with vision. He was described as "preacher-like and well-informed" at the Lambda debate by the Brooklyn Paper. So far, though, he can't raise the money it takes to get his voice heard in modern politics. Advocating impeachment, marriage equality, and withdrawal from Iraq, Chris is solidly the progressive, grassroots candidate. The Brooklyn grassroots is notoriously slow to get moving in a political campaign. So it remains to be seen if taking the path of progressive idealism will win this one for Chris.

Nick Perry: the loser candidate from Brooklyn's corrupt Clarence Norman...make that Vito "Lopez is not my real last name" Lopez...political machine. All rumors point to Nick Perry dropping out as soon as he can. Perhaps Perry is the machine’s sponge cake candidate and in this race the Dems don’t need to resort to someone like him. Looks like no one will miss him, when he quietly drops out to face Wellington Sharpe, who is gunning for Nick Perry’s Assembly seat.

Carl Andrews: the REAL candidate from Brooklyn's corrupt political machine. Despite being tainted by his association with Clarence Norman's corruption, he comes in second in fundraising for now. Like the Brooklyn machine in general, Andrews came off at the Lambda debate as uninterested in the voters, arriving more than an hour late. He also showed his disdain for the audience when he had to read his record on gay and lesbian issues from his own press release...and this was at an event SPONSORED by Brooklyn's gay and lesbian Democratic Club! Bad form, Carl, bad form! I also notice that Andrews' State Senate website is clearly neglected. Nothing to tell your constituents? Rumors are now flying that Carl Andrews may be leaving the race for NY-11 to stay in the State Senate and become minority leader...which translates to majority leader if it looks like the Dems can take the State Senate. The machine may step out of this race, which, given the strength of the reform vote particularly in Park Slope, may be wise. So, who would the machine endorse...?

David Yassky: the only white candidate, hoping to pick up the Park Slope vote while the black candidates split the votes of the rest of the district. This is a cynical but perhaps realistic strategy. Described as "wonkish" by the Brooklyn Paper, Yassky courts the progressive and reform vote, but fails to take solid stands, preferring to triangulate in the true Clinton/Schumer tradition. Again, a cynical yet, perhaps, winning strategy. Yassky's chances of taking the reform Dem standard from Chris Owens were lost when in 2005 Yassky endorsed uber-corrupt candidate for Brooklyn DA, John Sampson. Sampson was the machine-picked candidate who promised to "review" the Clarence Norman indictments. Remember that those indictments later led to Norman's conviction for corruption. Yassky's endorsement of Sampson linked him, despite his claims to be a reform Dem, to the same corrupt machine that Nick Perry and Carl Andrews represent. Could it be that Yassky's endorsement of Sampson was made to win the machine's support in the case of Andrews dropping out? If so, once again a cynical yet possibly winning strategy. Yassky, with his links to rich, white Park Slope, is way ahead in fundraising. Cynicism is paying off in this race!

Yvette Clarke: the only woman in the race since Tracy Boyland dropped her bid. For Yvette Clarke this is a grudge match: the Clarkes and the Owens families have a feud going and the Clarkes are constantly trying to unseat the Owenses. I hope that Clarke has more interest in this race than just a way to get back at Major Owens for past history. Perhaps not since the Brooklyn Paper described her performance at the Lambda event as "light on substance." The Clarkes also have past connections with Pataki and state Republicans. No one questions their legitimacy as Democrats, but as the person who is neither with the machine nor for reform, Clarke seems to have little support. The lack of a campaign website (other than her city council site) may indicate that Yvette, too, will be dropping out.

With Nick Perry and, quite possibly, Carl Andrews poised to drop out, the big question is who will get the machine support? Or will the machine sit this one out? Clearly David Yassky was angling for machine support back in 2005 when he angered his own base by endorsing the machine's candidate for Brooklyn DA. It is my guess that if or when Carl Andrews drops out, Yassky will receive his nod from the machine, but it will be lukewarm support at best. Yet, with a lukewarm nod from the machine and with the financial backing of the wealthiest in the district, this may become Yassky's race to lose.

Yvette Clarke, who is often described as being earnest but distant from her constituents, really needs to establish a base of support. An old grudge against Major Owens does not make a political career. And, in NY-11, neither does past connections with Governor Pataki. Short of a miracle, I do not see Yvette Clarke as winning this race.

Chris Owens has his name going both for and against him. Name recognition is a huge benefit on a ballot, but there is also an undercurrent of resentment at a dynastic bid for the seat. However, I would argue that Chris' name should neither guarantee his victory nor disqualify him. Chris is his own man and should be judged as such. Most who hear him and so judge him become followers, the result, perhaps, of his "preacher-like and well informed" delivery. He is both inspiring and intelligent, as well as idealistic. What he lacks right now is money. The grassroots of Brooklyn can prove their worth by winning this race for Chris. They failed to win much last year, but if they do get their act together, Chris Owens could win both the reform voters who Yassky betrayed and the progressives who are aching for a candidate they can be passionate about. That, with his name recognition, could win it for Chris.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

| | | | | | | |