David Yassky lost me when he announced he was going to be running for the congressional seat in the 11th district - which is, dear David, a voting rights district, specifically tailored to elect an African-American to Congress. Turn on your TV, and take a wild guess why the VRA remains relevant. I'm going to be actively campaigning for owens and against yassky, if for no other reason than that the latter's cynicism in getting into this race disgusts me.

I live in the far-away Bronx, but the race content of these remarks has set my teeth on edge. Are there black, hispanic, asian or white seats? The state legistlature and courts may draw oddly shaped districts to ensure that one ethnic group of voters is dominant. Should we then say that individuals who don't belong to the right group shouldn't run for election in a predomiantly one-race district? Its one thing to oppose a candidate because his policies are flawed and quite another becuase his skin is the wrong color.

I discussed his endorsement of Sampson with Yassky today. He was rather defensive, I think well aware of Sampson’s weaknesses. His answer was basically this: Hynes is bad, has been in for 16 years and had to be FORCED to indict Clarence Norman and has dragged his feet on even these indictments. He has discussed the issue with Sampson and is convinced that, though not ideal, Sampson will be better than Hynes. His two main points, as I understood them, were: a.) no one could be worse than Hynes, so any change will be for the better, and b.) Yassky has grilled Sampson and has thought about the issue a lot and is convinced that Sampson will be an improvement. His basic stand is that the Brooklyn DA office is in such a mess we HAVE to change. I pointed out that Paul Wooten would have been the only one guaranteed to do that and his response that Paul would have been the best possible choice for DA but had no chance of winning.

First off, I will say that Yassky has valid points. Hynes may have been good initially, but he has been a fairly do-nothing DA for years now and he did, in essence, waited until Clarence Norman’s corruption was so bad, there was no way to ignore it before he went after him. But from there I differ with Yassky. The solution to a bad DA is NOT to then favor the candidate hand picked by the boss of the corrupt machine you are trying to reform. I do genuinely think Yassky wants reform and he feels Hynes won’t do it. But it seems to me Sampson is far LESS likely to do it since he is beholden to Norman.

I think there are currently four approaches to this race backing four different candidates. There is one view, which I think explains IND’s endorsement of Hynes. Hynes has a reasonable record of reducing crime (whether or not he is responsible for that reduction is another matter!) and he HAS leveld four indictments against Norman. We should reward those indictments by re-electing him, thus sending the message that we support reform.

Yassky’s view seems to be (again, this is my interpretation of what he said) is that Hynes has been bad and we need a change. The only other viable option is Sampson, so he supports Sampson to send the message the status quo is unacceptable. Again, the fact that Sampson represents the entrenched machine somewhat belies this argument, but it does take into account the fact that Sampson and Hynes are the supposed frontrunners.

There are two other, more idealistic approaches. My original approach, now defunct, was to simply choose the absolute best guy for the job—Paul Wooten. Yassky and pretty much everyone else I have talked to, no matter who they now plan to vote for, agree that Paul Wooten was the smartest and the most honest candidate. That means he is the best, right? To me yes. But to everyone else it was assumed that he had no chance so they avoided him like the plague. All the reformers and leftists in Brooklyn (with few exceptions) refused to help the most reform-minded, most honest, most intelligent candidate. Just think what might have happened if each and every one of those people and groups who thought Wooten was the best had supported him from the start. Maybe he would be a real contender! It angers me that people who KNOW Wooten is the best still avoided him because they wanted to back a winner.

The final approach is to recognize that Hynes and Sampson both are bad and to pick the next possibility. That would be Mark Peters, a man who talks reform very well, but has no real experience or record. What he has is money. He may have a chance because of his family’s wealth. A vote for Peters is a vote for reform and a vote against both Hynes and Sampson. This is the approach of New Democratic Majority and CBID. Again, I just wish they had backed Wooten instead since Peters is not really convincing enough as a reformer, nor experienced enough to be the best candidate.

So, this is the ultimate example of the Democrats dilemma: pick the winner no matter how bad? Or pick the best candidate no matter how impossible his chance? Or pick the non-incumbent, no matter how bad, just because the status quo is bad? Or pick the guy who isn’t the worst but isn’t the best but at least has money backing him?

It is a sad state when the Republicans are controlling our nation, destroying everything America once stood for, and the Dems are trying to decide whether Hynes or Sampson is worse for fighting corruption in Brooklyn. I challenge all Democrats to do better. If there is a Paul Wooten, we all need to back him in the primary because the BEST candidate should be out choice. Sometimes it is not so clear, but even when it is as clear as it is here in Brooklyn, we somehow manage to do the wrong thing. So we are left being led by Sampsons and Hyneses with the good candidates never being supported.