Congratulations Congresswoman Clarke
Congratulations Congresswoman Clarke. I am never sad to see a black woman win a Congressional seat. My concern is simply the pattern of lying that surrounds Ms. Clarke. All I can say is please stop it. It will hurt all of us in the end.
I also ask Ms. Clarke to please continue the leadership she has shown in fighting against DRE machines. You showed us you understood the problem in the City Council. Take that to Congress.
Finally, the mood at the Chris Owens camp was still energized. We never expected victory, though we hoped for it. We fought so hard not because we expected to win but rather because we wanted to fight for ideas that we really feel are worth fighting for. We fought not out of obligation or to win political favors. Everyone in the Owens camp was there out of true dedication. Chris expressed his desire to continue working with that dedicated movement to further a better vision of government. That is a desire I had even before I met Chris. Chris showed me that there are leaders out there who understand that vision of government serving the people rather than serving special interests. That movement is not dead. Congratulations to Chris for becoming the focal point of a movement of ideas and ideals and let's see if we can keep it going.
To David Yassky I say this: learn from this. Don't take people for granted and don't put money over people or ideals. I know you came from the grassroots. Reconnect with that grassroots and be humbled by this loss. Do that and I suspect you will have a political future. Mark Green has never been humbled by loss and see where it has gotten him.
Carl Andrews: you chose the machine. Perhaps that was necessary given political realities of Brooklyn. But when you associate with corruption people assume you are corrupt. And America after years of Enron and Halliburton Republicans are tired of corruption.
And now, good night.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2006 Elections | Primaries | Brooklyn | CD-11 | Yvette Clarke
In other results
Submitted by rwallnerny on 13 September 2006 - 1:10am.
40th A.D.
DIANE GORDON 3,594 57%
KENNETH EVANS 1,587 25%
WINCHESTER KEY 1,148 18%
Diane Gordon is arrested, charged and indicted by a grand jury for being caught on videotape repeatedly soliciting a bribe of a free house from a developer in exchange for her vote and
help, and she gets RE-NOMINATED for another term?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
What the hell are they thinking over in the 40th? Does she get to keep her seat while she's in jail?
This is Brooklyn!
Submitted by mole333 on 13 September 2006 - 7:59am.
This is sadly typical of Brooklyn. Which is why we need to get the reform Democrats and the progressive Democrats together again rather than splitting their efforts. And we need to broaden the reform/progressive coalition (should we ever succeed in forming it!) beyond its current core. Sadly, Chris and Bill were great chances for expanding our contacts but since the reformers and progressives were split on them, we failed in broadening our appeal. Or, maybe I should say we failed to broaden it as much as we could have.
On a positive note I was too tired to blog on last night, both Dena Douglas and Jackie Williams won Civil Court. THAT is a reform victory and shows that we can come together somewhat. I was including them on my flyers that featured Chris and even Yassky supporters were interested in my judicial recommendations. When we agree on something, the reformers and progressives can win. When we disagree, we lose.
Chris and DDDB
Submitted by Jake (not verified) on 13 September 2006 - 8:24am.
Since Chris is so dedicated to seeing the AY project get tossed, is he going to spend his time now to coordinate with DDDB and get a real plan together? Those guys could really use the help.
Real plan?
Submitted by mole333 on 13 September 2006 - 8:58am.
I am not sure what you mean by a "real plan." If you mean for the development of the area, DDDB does highlight on their website the community-oriented plans that already exist. They have always emphasized the need for GOOD development and have extensively highlighted them.
If you mean a political plan, well, we ALL need to work on that. DDDB, IND, CBID, NDM, DFNYC and a whole bunch of other letter combinations need to coordinate with the help of people like Chris and Bill Batson. We ALL need help politically. The efforts of reform Democrats, WFP Democrats and progressive Democrats in Brooklyn are too divided, scattershot and uncoordinated. Divided we don't do so well. United (more or less) we can do far more. So I would expand your statement to encompass far more than Chris Owens and DDDB if you are talking politically.
A good thing
Submitted by sidnora on 13 September 2006 - 10:47am.
that came out of this race, that all Owens partisans can applaud, and all Yassky partisans should applaud: in the words of a commentator on WNYC, Yvette Clarke's victory has "finally driven a stake through the heart of Clarence Norman's machine". And sad as I am this morning, at least I have the consolation of a fine future State Senator in Eric Adams.
There is a message for the victor in this race, as well. Ms. Clarke has pledged to serve in the spirit of the illustrious original incumbent of this seat, Representative Shirley Chisholm. All I ask is that she remember that promise, and the size of the shoes she has undertaken to fill.
Here is the challenge: never forget that 69% of the voters chose someone else. Be inclusive, be progressive, be forthright, be humble in victory, and be honest, Ms. Clarke. Make even those of us who worked for your opponents proud you won.
But how much common ground is there?
Submitted by rwallnerny on 13 September 2006 - 10:50am.
But how much common ground is there between progressive democrats (code word for liberals) and reform democrats (code word for moderate to conservative and liberterian democrats)? It always seems like an uneasy marriage.
In the last mayoral race, many brooklyn progressives backed the reformers candidate, Anthony Weiner, a moderate who was campaigining on a platform of large tax cuts. It didn't make much difference as the machine candidate (Ferrer) still won. So the question becomes, does working together obscure the differences at a time when they shouldn't BE obscured? You get an issue like the Iraq war, or even Atlantic Yards locally, and you get ready made smoke and mirrors to avoid dealing with the real philosophical differences. The Iraq war or any war brings democrats of different factions together, but it takes the focus away from deep ideological chasms. Differences over how government should be run, and the relationship between it and the private sector.
It seems like the Democratic Party as a whole, not just locally but nationally, has suffered from its own membership not being on the same page on enough of these basic issues. There has to be a strong basic framework, you either want a certain kind of governmnent or you don't. You either accept the role that government plays or should play or you don't. These uneasy marriages between different ideological factions within the party often lead to so much infighting that it benefits the republicans. The marriage has to have a stronger foundation and I think that is what Howard Dean has been saying. A bad marriage clearly is not better than no marriage at all. Either things can be worked out on a basic level between progressives and reformers or there shouldn't BE a marriage at all.
Mole I admire your up beat
Mole I admire your up beat positive attitude always. And your Jon Stewart esque request for Clarke to please stop lying.
uch so sad