One thing about blogging that makes it attractive to many is the fact that you can sound off anonymously in the threads and not be called into account. There is no one to hold you responsible when the things you predict turn out to be “duds”; no one will castigate you when some of the outrageous things you claim are glaringly refuted. That’s unfortunate, but it’s the reality of the “blogosphere”. That’s why I use my name when I write: I want to be held responsible for what I say or predict. It’s the only honest and serious way to do this; it’s also the brave way to do this. To me, it’s also the right way to do it.
Last year (on May 24th, 2006) to be exact, I wrote a column here entitled: “Yvette Clarke to Make Major Campaign Overhaul”; it generated a lively thread. I suggest that some of you go to that article now, before reading this one; you must read the comments section also. To do that, you have to scroll down on this site, and then find my name under “bloggers”(left side), click on my name and my profile comes up, then click on “my blog” (Rock Hackshaw’s blog), and all my articles written here come up. Scroll down till you find that article (it’s currently on page 4).
In that article, I made Yvette Clarke the 5-2 favorite to capture Shirley Chisholm’s old seat, and some of the comments generated show that not too many agreed with me then.
I had posted odds on the congressional races in Brooklyn’s 10th and 11th districts long before this, and had been ridiculed and even taken to task-on my methodology and such- by some of the more “knowledgeable” readers of this Room 8 website, likewise on some other blog sites dealing with NYC politics, and also in the comments-section of my posts. My analyses of both races have turned out to be “right on the money”. I was the only blogger in NYC who predicted that Charles Barron would run a very strong race in defeat. And also, once Nick Perry withdrew from the 11th congressional race, I was the only blogger who made Yvette Clarke the favorite.
So now that Yvette Clarke has assumed her duties as congresswoman from the 11th district, some political-pundits and other political-analysts have started black-slapping each other over this simple and easy call (they claim). But was it? Was it really a simple and easy call? Or are all these folks missing the real reason why Yvette won?
Explaining the elementary whys and wherefores of Yvette’s victory is (to me) really quite simple in itself. The rudiments were that Yvette ran for the seat two years earlier, and that had to have helped significantly-remember, she did secure around 30% of the vote that year (2004) against the incumbent (Major Owens), in a four way race (Tracey Boyland and Tooks Pearse). Also, the fact that her mother (Una) ran a tremendous race in the same district in 2000 (she garnered more individual votes than Yvette actually did-both times her daughter ran), and given that Una is an icon in the Caribbean-American voting bloc, here was a fine combination that no other candidate in this race could utilize. Also, the fact that Yvette was the only female in the race surely couldn’t have hurt either.
We all know now that victory didn’t come about because of Yvette’s sterling academic credentials; nor was it her standout record on the city council; nor was it that intellectually speaking, she was far superior to her opponents in this race (though she sure went after them in the debates/didn’t she/taking no prisoners it seems). We also know that it wasn’t her long list of endorsements-although one particular union (1199) helped her tremendously in this victory- since the other candidates had put together impressive lists of endorsees themselves. In my estimation, Yvette’s victory came about because of one main factor: Assemblyman Nick Perry’s withdrawal from the congressional race. I am sure that many of Yvette’s sycophants will probably take me to task (again) for this statement, but as we pronounce it in the islands: “say la vee” (it is life). I firmly believe that Nick’s withdrawal facilitated her victory. And this is not to minimize the credit due to Yvette and her team for running a hard campaign; she showed a lot of spunk and grit when faced with numerous obstacles and encumbrances. She toughed it out in a quasi-admirable way.
Back in 2001, in the middle of a fiercely contested democratic primary to replace Una on the city council (40th District), Ms. Verna Smith, the producer of that long-running cable-television show “ Caribbean Roundtable” (BCAT), took her TV crew to the corner of Flatbush and Church Avenues. It was around the middle of August that year. She had decided to do an informal survey of voters in the district in order to gauge where and how the race was going. What she found out was the voters she surveyed knew only one thing: “Una daughter running” (with Caribbean-brogue to match). Most of the potential voters couldn’t name any of the other six candidates in the race-even though two of them had run before. Most of them didn’t even know Yvette’s first name.
Thus it was a very easy call for some of us to predict that Yvette would win that one in a cakewalk; she did. I made some people angry with my prediction; nothing new when you shoot from the head and the lips, and not just from the hips. Una Clarke hand-delivered her council seat to her daughter Yvette; the daughter is an extension of a two-headed team. Without Una, Yvette is most likely another runner who tried and failed. Publicly, Yvette is her mother’s biggest sycophant; nothing wrong with that by the way.
When the pre-race shape-up for last year’s 11th Congressional started drawing media attention (Chris Owens, Carl Andrews, Nick Perry and Yvette Clarke/all black), with the announcement that NYC Councilmember David Yassky was entering the race-making it four blacks against one white candidate- panic set in amongst militant blacks unfamiliar with this district. After all, the district contained about 25% whites in population, and the seat was now at risk-relative to black empowerment. The absurdity of the Al Vann’s of Brooklyn’s political world, jumping in to aid their candidate (Carl Andrews), in a not even subtle attempt to retard anything Caribbean-linked (par for the course by the way), only further highlighted the chasm that exists between blacks born in the USA and those foreign-born. It’s one of our dirty lil secrets hardly ever spoken about.
I remember having separate conversations with both Nick Perry and Yvette Clarke, where I told each one, that if either/other was to drop out, it will tremendously increase the other’s chances of victory. I also said that if both stay in the race that they would both lose. This didn’t come about because of my ivy-league education folks, no sireee Bob, this was simple analysis: they were both hitting at the same Caribbean-American base of voters; and although there was a significant Caribbean-American bloc of votes here, it couldn’t successfully sustain two candidates in the race at the same time-it just wasn’t large enough. This was a ground ball cousins; you cold have picked it up with a blindfold. I am sure that Ms. Lystra Collis made this plain to both of them (Nick and Yvette) by New Year’s Day 2006; Lystra’s mother didn’t raise a fool.
If Nick Perry had stayed in the race, Yvette and Nick would have been fighting a battle as to who between both of them would have ended up in last place. It is most likely that Nick would have finished in last place, since Yvette was bringing more EDs to the table, given that Nick was only bringing in about 65 % of his district to the race, while Yvette’s whole district was subsumed by the 11th congressional. Plus some of the factors I earlier listed that were favorable to Yvette’s candidacy rendered her a stronger candidate than Nick in this particular race. The two main things Nick had going for him were, his opposition to gay-marriage and the fact that he was the only Caribbean-born candidate in the race. The latter however, was something that Yvette–with her Caribbean-American identity- was surely going to test. The former (gay-marriage issue) separated him from all the other candidates; but at the end of the night Nick was not going to risk giving up his relatively safe Assembly seat on a single issue, especially with another person in the race (the only female to booth) who could claim some Caribbean roots.
When I posed the title question of this article to various Caribbean-American political activists, their answers were somewhat surprising. I must admit that I had expected a definitive “yes” all the way through; that didn’t occur. Do the Clarkes owe Nick Perry big time? I think so. It seems however that many don’t agree with me.
For the most part, the answers I received were somewhat qualified. For example; Caribbean-American political guru Maurice Gumbs stated that Nick Perry withdrew from the 11th Congressional race because he saw that he had no chance of winning and not because he really wanted Yvette Clarke to win-even though Perry subsequently endorsed Yvette in the race. Gumbs went on to elaborate on Una Clarke’s 2000 race against Major Owens, where Perry supported Owens. In that race, one Caribbean-American newspaper (the Carib News) in its post-primary editorial, stated that Nick‘s enthusiastic support for Owens, “showed that he had put personal ambition ahead of Caribbean-American empowerment”. It was widely known then, that Nick wanted to be Major’s successor. It is also widely stated that Perry was the architect of the anti-Una smear-where a picture of her hugging Rudy Giuliani after some rather hectic budget negotiations, was circulated throughout the black sections of the district- during this campaign. This to many was “the kiss of death” to Una’s candidacy, since on the black side of the tracks, Giuliani was hated with a passion. Remember folks, this was before “9/11”.
Wellington Sharpe said that Nick was just jerking people around, and that evidence is surfacing now which shows that Nick knew from way back, that he was going to pull out of the race. He insinuates that Nick Perry was basically “flattering to deceive” (my words). He thinks that Perry should have been more forthright with people. James Connolly says that Perry was never really a candidate. Connolly’s position is similar to that of attorney Edward Roberts, which is that Nick was never going to give up his Assembly seat for a speculative race wherein his chances were rather slim.
For whatever it’s worth, the folks who agreed with me were mainly female in gender. Attorney Marva Prescod (St. Vincent), former NYC council candidate Marlene Tapper (Barbados), and the president of the Marcus Garvey Political Organization, Pam Madari Miller (Jamaica), all agree that the Clarkes owe Nick Perry. And now that Perry’s intention is to run for the Brooklyn Borough President position in 2 years, many expect the Clarkes to endorse and support his run. But will they?
There are some folks who believe that Perry is in for a rude awakening when that race comes, since they believe that Perry’s congressional ambitions will always be threatening to Una and Yvette. They believe that Perry will get the “Major” treatment, in that what he expects as loyalty will not be what he receives as payback; and we all know that payback is a bitch called Jezebel. What do you think?
One thing that is known for sure, is that in order to be successful in the Boro Prez race (2009), Nick Perry has to unite (and also excite) his Caribbean-American voting-base. Without the help of that icon Una Clarke, and her daughter Congresswoman Yvette Clarke, Perry will have a hard time doing this. He has already alienated folks such as Asquith Reid, Omar Boucher, Wellington Sharpe and the NYC councilmember from the 45th district (Kendall Stewart); unless he mends some fences soon, his hopes for Boro Prez will die as slow a death as his hopes for Congress did last year.
Stay tuned-in folks.