Yesterday, the Yvette Clarke campaign, recovering from the scandal of Ms. Clarke's lying about graduating from Oberlin, announced a "Town Hall Meeting" featuring Congressman John Murtha. The topic of that "Town Hall Meeting" will be "Stand up to End the War in Iraq."

A worthy thing, no doubt! Brooklyn SHOULD have such a Town Hall meeting. Problem is, it seemed as if the Clarke campaign was hijacking this "Town Hall meeting" for its own political purposes, in effect implying (wrongly) that Ms. Clarke was the only "anti-war" candidate running for CD-11.

Every reacted yesterday to the appearance that Ms. Clarke was using Murtha's appearance at a Town Hall meeting for her own gain, in effect implying an endorsement that wasn't there...something she has done in the past even with a NY Times endorsement. Multiple calls to Murtha's Washington office and campaign office got nothing but confusion at the idea that Murtha might be endorsing a local candidate...in fact one person got precisely the answer that "The Congressman doesn't get involved in local politics."

Last night I talked to several people in Ms. Clarke's campaign. First of all, they are angry at Daily Gotham for not checking with them before writing about them. Second, as Room Eight also reports, they are saying that Murtha really will endorse Yvette Clarke and that is what the event is all about.

Well, if it is an endorsement, well, congratulations to Yvette.

As to Daily Gotham checking with the Clarke campaign before posting, I can see that. Comment noted. However, what were we supposed to check with you? You bill an event as a Town Hall meeting and we reacted accordingly. You are angry at us that it took us some time to ask you if it really was an endorsement?

Well, if it is an endorsement, then bill it as an endorsement, NOT as a Town Hall meeting. By calling it a "Town Hall meeting" you mislead the public and should not be angry when we react to your event as if it was a "Town Hall meeting." Liza has in the past expressed equal support to Chris Owens and Yvette Clarke, indicating that you have a sympathetic ear here at Daily Gotham. I have also written sympathetic articles about Ms. Clarke in the past, particularly regarding her stand on voting machines. About the only thing we have called you on, and rightly so, is the credibility issue: endorsements falsely or prematurely claimed and a diploma from Oberlin falsely claimed.

In return we have seldom received any reasonable comments from Yvette Clarke supporters. Instead, we have gotten occasional posts from Clarke supporters that do nothing more than smear other candidates with not evidence and no substance. The only dialogue the Clarke campaign has opened with the Daily Gotham, as far as I am aware, was an attempt some time back to get us being nastier about Yassky. One of Clarke's campaign staff directly approached me, complemented me on what I was writing, and told me point blank to get nastier about Yassky.

That is the only outreach I have received from Clarke's people despite having written complementary pieces about Ms. Clarke. By contrast, Yassky and Owens have at various times had ongoing dialogues with me. And both Owens and Yassky supporters have posted comments with substance discussing issues, not just smears of other candidates (though those sometimes also come up).

So here's the deal. If this event is a Town Hall meeting, then protocol dictates that the sitting Congressman should be invited since two other Congressmen not from the district will be there. Also, if it is a Town Hall meeting on Iraq, and Yvette Clarke is invited as a supporter of the Murtha amendment, then ALL of the CD-11 candidates should be invited as a unified front against the war. That was not done. Not doing these things was gauche in the extreme and shows a lack of professionalism.

If the event is an endorsement, then of course the protocol is different. No one else need be invited. But then you DON'T CALL IT A TOWN HALL MEETING. By calling it one thing and treating it like another, you are being disingenuous. That is not the message you want to be giving after the rush of scandals about mis-statements and false statements that have surrounded Ms. Clarke.

For quite some time Yvette Clarke had been my second choice in the CD-11 race. And from what she has written in the past, it seemed like Yvette was tied with Chris Owens for first choice in Liza's mind. Speaking for myself, I cannot now support Yvette Clarke for one reason and one reason only: credibility. In 2004 and this year, there have been too many misleading statements for me to trust her or her campaign. That and a generally nasty attitude towards all who don't support her wholeheartedly are the main flaws I see in Yvette Clarke's campaign.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

| | | | | | | |