Pam Spaulding alerted me to the demotardic shenanigans of Andrew Cuomo. My quick response is ending up being a larger piece on race, so let me just get the news out first.

Andrew Cuomo, the Attorney General for the State of New York and Hillary Clinton supporter, has earned not just a culturekitchen Demotard award. He also gets to hang on his door a Reappropriate "Racism Fairy" badge and enjoy a video prelude from Spike Lee's Do The Right Thing :

Andrew Cuomo (who could easily be played by John Tuturro, the italian guy in the video clip) said of the primary process that, “You can’t shuck and jive at a press conference ... all those moves you can make with the press don’t work when you’re in someone’s living room.”

His response to criticism for the quote? Well, what he really meant was "bob and weave" your way through a situation. That it was never meant as a reference to Barack Obama.

Yes, because "shuck and jive" is really all about bobbing and weaving.

Geezus.

I have more respect from Klansmembers than from Europeanoid liberals with repressed racist tendencies that get manifested in curiously inappropriate moments like, you know, when they're talking up their white candidate who's poised to lose the nomination to a black man.

DEM, WOR
Andrew Cuomo
Campaign Website: http://www.andrewcuomo.com/home.asp

REP, IND, CON
Jeanine Pirro
Campaign Website: http://www.jeaninepirro.com

LBT
Chris Garvey (Libertarian)
Campaign Website: http://home.att.net/~chrisgarvey/home.htm

GRE
Rachel Treichler (Green)
Campaign Wesite: http://www.serve.com/ecobooks/voterachel

SWP
Martin Koppel (Socialist Workers' Party)

I'm looking at the Attorney General race with a mixture of amusement and foreboding. Mark Green is clearly having the time of his life (how long can it be before he buys everyone in this state a subscription to the New York Times?), doing what he does best: attack.

Here's a suggestion, made because this blog has been not unfriendly to Mark, and (if I had to hazard a guess) because the Daily Gotham editors are pretty much friendlier to Green than we are to Cuomo: Mark, lay off a bit, and tell us why you're the best choice, not that Andy Cuomo is Bush's butt boy. He's not. The same message goes out to the Cuomo camp.

I'm concerned specifically about the stature of the eventual primary winner after the smoke clears. In this year's California gubernatorial primary, the contenders, Westly and Angelides, did everything to each other but rip off hunks of flesh with trained Rottweilers. The eventual winner, Phil Angelides, was weak to begin with (Freddy Ferrer with a tan, as I wrote to a republican friend of mine who's reasonably well connected in the California party), and is presently on a course to lose his race to Arnold Schwarzenegger. The governator, in turn, is using the wealth of material from the Democratic primary to smear the Democratic nominee, and it's working.

It's easy enough to laugh at Jeanine Pirro. Page 10, her husband, her hair, the list goes on. It's also a mistake to do so. In the general, she's the only republican who may stand a chance, and the last thing we need is a Democratic governor paired with a hostile Attorney General who has designs on the governorship. Maybe Mark and Andy don't remember Ken Starr, but I do. Lay off, guys, because while what you're doing to each other may be fun to watch, you're also hurting the overall agenda - and that is more important than either of your careers. While I personally prefer Green as the next AG, I could live with Cuomo; I couldn't live with Pirro.

The New York Times today endorsed Mark Green, delivering a major shot across the bow for Andrew Cuomo and reinvigorating Green's candidacy.

If there are excellent Democratic candidates for governor this year, the race to succeed Attorney General Eliot Spitzer is a lot more contentious and a lot less promising. But there’s little question that the former public advocate, Mark Green, is the candidate whose experience and record best fit this job.

From the beginning, this race has been a contest between Mr. Green and Andrew Cuomo, the former secretary of housing and urban development. Two other candidates, Sean Patrick Maloney and Charlie King, are interesting politicians who have little chance to win this particular contest.

I still say that Maloney is the best and most interesting choice of the four (with Charlie King also great, but with a somewhat misplaced message, as I told him at his pre-campaign cocktail reception), but he's been pigeonholed, partially by design and partially by default, as the gay candidate; which is not per se a liability in this state, but did keep the rest of his message from getting out. He'll likely wind up with a juicy job in a Spitzer administration and be on the watchlist going forward. But back to the Times:

Well, this is interesting. I just got an email from the campaign of Sean Patrick Maloney, who is running for Attorney General (and was recently endorsed by NDM, on which organization's board I sit); another invite to another fundraiser. Memo to all candidates: when I feel like giving you a grand, don't call me, I'll call you.

What caught my eye was the host committee. It includes Susan Thomases - yes, that one, the very steadfast friend of Bill and Hill.

What gives? Does Sean have a friendly ear in Chappaqua? Is there news forthcoming? Is this an informal nod in the AG race?

I am intrigued.

Last night's special Independent Neighborhood Democrats (IND) endorsement meeting ends the lengthy IND endorsement process for 2006. And it has been an exciting one. I am sure IND President, Karen Johnson, is glad to have it finally behind her!

In the last spate of endorsements I reported the surprising results that IND rebelled against the State Party Machine because of the thugguish, strong-arm tactics that the State party practice at the State Convention. District Leaders were threatened if they didn't toe the line on endorsements, and Eliot and Cuomo were forced down the throats of New York Democrats. In the case of Eliot, well, with all due respect to Suozzi, Eliot really is the only choice. In the case of Attorney General, Cuomo is the least qualified and least palatable of choices, making the State Party's tactics particularly galling.

Partly in rebellion against the State Party, IND endorsed Suozzi for Governor and Denise O'Donnell, arguably the most qualified candidate, for Attorney General. For a club that is sometimes criticized for opting for winners rather than the best candidate for their endorsement, this rebellion was a surprise and that particular meeting seemed to be kind of an exiting one for all. There seemed to be a sense of the little guy standing up to the bully and winning a small victory.

Well, the protest vote for Suozzi seemed to come more from dissatisfaction about Spitzer than from support of Suozzi because, shall we say, IND is not living up to its reputation for excellent petitioning when it comes to Suozzi. State level candidates are on separate petitions, so are not included on the IND slate petitions. Members are urged to carry state level petitions, but only do so if they feel like it. The large stack of untouched Suozzi petitions I saw last night shows that not many IND members have gone to bat for Suozzi.

The O'Donnell endorsement was different. There was a sense of rebellion, but there also was a sense of backing an excellent candidate. That excellent candidate dropped out the day after IND endorsed. Sean Patrick Malony had been a close second in that meeting's endorsement, but the withdrawal of O'Donnell meant IND had to have another meeting to endorse for Attorney General. That meeting happened last night.

Turnout was low. That of course meant that the candidate whose supporters made the most phone calls to get turn out got the endorsement. No candidates came (though Charlie King had been expected). Mark Green was barely even mentioned and sent no surrogate. Former State Senator and candidate for AG Karen Burstein spoke for Maloney and Matilda Cuomo (Mario's wife and Andrew's mother) spoke for her dear son.

Karen Burstein was magnificent. She reminded me of an old-style, fiery Jewish Socialist. She gave a passionate, inspiring speech that I loved. She outlined Maloney's qualifications, and they are lengthy, as an investigative attorney and as a member of the Clinton Administration.

Matilda Cuomo...well, her proud mother speech was endearing, though somewhat marred by the bruiser body guard who accompanied her. That bruiser's presence may have been the reason why the club President did not keep her to the allotted time limit and let Matilda ramble on for I don't know how long. Much of the speech had nothing to do with Andrew Cuomo but was all about Matilda and Mario. All very nice and very charming, but not quite what people wanted. Ultimately, the little she mentioned of Andrew was how good he was as head of HUD. Great. So now I will eagerly vote for him for head of HUD. But very little was said about his qualifications for AG.

Karen Johnson was in top form. Not only were her jokes funnier than usual (I say with trepidation lest I enourage her to make more jokes!), but her hard ball question regarding Andrew Cuomo's lack of actual qualifications was not only an excellent question getting to the heart of the problem with Cuomo, but it was phrased tactfully and excellently. Of course Matilda really simply reiterated how qualified Cuomo was for being head of HUD, but the question was great.

Buddy Scotto, who was the lone voice speaking against the last meeting's rebellion, had done his work well. He had presumably made some phone calls and his people came. I don't think either Karen Burstein's or Matilda Cuomo's speeches swayed anyone. The Cuomo contigent had turned out and Cuomo got the endorsement on the first ballot with Sean Patrick Maloney coming in second. Mark Green got very few votes.

The rebellion against the State Machine is over, crushed by the Tories in the ranks led by Buddy Scotto. The Irish candidates made the best showing last time, but the Italian got it in the end.

My son Jacob, now 20 months old, has been part of the Brooklyn political circuit since before he was born. My wife and I petitioned for county committee while she was 6 months pregnant. We went to the County Committee meeting when she was OVERDUE to give birth. Just think. We could have disrupted Clarence Norman's last show had she gone into labor then and there. I wonder if they would have told us it wasn't on the script...I mean agenda.

Jacob has often had interesting reactions to politicians, and I know Michael Bouldin is always fascinated by his acumen. Jacob cried no less than three times when hearing Gifford Miller speak. He was cranky for Freddie Ferrer. He loves both Chris Owens AND David Yassky, always smiling for both. And on primary election day 2005, Jacob gleefully helped me hold a Norm Siegel sign. I have a picture of that if I can ever find it and load it up.

At the last CBID meeting, we brought Jacob, something we can't usually do these days. We didn't get to stay long since Jacob started getting cranky. We weren't voting anyway (being voting members of IND) so we figured we'd check in, hear a candidate or two, then leave.

Turns out all we got to hear was Mark Green. The speech he gave was the same one, jokes and all, that he gave at IND. But somehow at IND his asshole side was all we saw. Somehow the speech gave a better impression at CBID (getting him the endorsement, I should add). I am still a Maloney fan, but hearing Green at CBID did make me more open to Green.

But Jacob seemed unimpressed.

First I have to give a tiny bit of background. You see, Jacob is kind of a health food nut. Joy and I love crappy food, but Jacob's favorite foods are tofu, dried fruit and nuts. Very healthy kid. One nut he likes are Cashews. First time I fed him cashews I called them "cashew nuts." His version of that, which he is locked into to this day, is...I kid you not..."cat nuts."

So...during Mark Green's speech we are feeding him. Dried fruit, tofu, strawberries and cashews...all his favorites so he'll quietly eat. Well it mostly worked, until we got to the cashews. Yep. Mark Green's speech at CBID was punctuated by my baby yelling out "cat nuts!" very emphatically. I think people around noticed and couldn't quite believe what they were hearing.

Well, finally, as Green went on and on (mostly sounding quite good in my opinion) Jacob finally started saying what he says when someone is leaving: "I say bye-bye." I think he wanted Mark Green to stop talking and leave. He kept saying it. Ultimately it was us who had to leave as his mood deteriorated.

So...for what it's worth, Jacob cries for Gifford Miller and Freddie Ferrer, likes Chris Owens and David Yassky, will do work for Norm Siegel, and yell's "cat nuts" at Mark Green and calls for him to "say bye-bye." Now with some luck, this diary made Michael Bouldin snarf his cup of coffee.

I am quite sympathetic to opponents of the Atlantic Yards project, though I do not consider it the only factor in deciding what candidates to support. I have heard the opponents of the Atlantic Yards uber-development project called a "single issue" group. I have myself referred to them as "single issue," as a matter of fact. Now, there is nothing wrong with focusing on a single issue, but the more I think about it, I realize that issues surrounding NYC development in general, and Atlantic Yards in particular, involve some of the core issues of the progressive movement. Furthermore, in general politicians who understand the problems with Atlantic Yards are the ones who recognize the core values of the progressive movement. Those politicians who don’t get why Atlantic Yards is so wrong don’t get, on a very fundamental level, the core values of the progressive movement. There are exceptions. But in general, it strikes me that Atlantic Yards not only is, but should be one of the dominant issues in local politics. I will add that it should not be the ONLY dominant issue, but it should be one of the dominant issues.

The issues that surround development in NYC in general, and Atlantic Yards in particular, include the culture of corruption that seems to be filtering from the Federal government down to the local level, the neglect or active removal of "undesirable" communities (usually minority and poor), government secrecy, excessive links between business and government, use of tax money to aid big business, and the exclusion of the community from major decisions regarding its own future. The interests of the rich are put above the interests of the city even by the city government, and this is often done in secrecy. It is hard to think of a single issue that encompasses more fundamental concerns of the progressive movement than Atlantic Yards.

One of the key problems with the Atlantic Yards project is the secrecy, dishonesty and probably corruption that surround it. There really have been secret deals made between Rater and the mayor and governors offices promising land and exclusion from full review. The state agency that is supposed to judge if the Atlantic Yards project should be approved, the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), not only rents space from Ratner, but wants to hire Ratner’s own lawyer, at Ratner’s expense, to advise them on whether they should approve Ratner’s plan. Yes, I know a court just approved these things, but come on folks! This is stuff worthy of the Federal Republican culture of corruption! It stinks. Add to that blatant lies that have been told to the community by Ratner. Lies, secrecy and what sure looks like corruption even if a court approves it. Even if all of this is legal, THESE are the very practices that the progressive movement was formed to fight. Government honesty, transparency and ethics are at the root of the original progressive reforms.

And I am not alone in thinking so. Recently, investigative attorney, former Senior White House Advisor to President Clinton, and current candidate for Attorney General recently sent out a couple of letters stating his stand on Atlantic Yards. His first such letter does an excellent job of outlining many of the problems with Ratner’s plans that I will quote directly from it:

…I believe that the Brooklyn Atlantic Yards development must be stopped-cold until some tough questions get asked and answered. As it is today, this project is the face of what’s wrong with a corrupt culture that mixes business and politics, profits and tax dollars. My objections to the project stem from the flawed and secretive process by which decisions are made. Decisions that could change the face of the community forever. Decisions that deserve more scrutiny, more tough issues like fairness and transparency and including:

· The Forest City Ratner proposal is a selective bid.

· A profound disregard for community involvement in the decision making process.

· The shameful lack of accountability and transparency by Forest City Ratner by failing to provide a detailed financial report.

· There is little evidence…that the decision making process included concern for the historical character of the neighborhood.

· The Forest City Ratner proposal does not adequately address affordable housing questions posed by concerned members of the community.

· Although the MTA appraised the value of the rail yards at $241 million, the MTA chose the lowest bidder instead of the higher bid from Extell.

This plan, as it is, cannot be allowed to move forward; however, I would support responsible development that earnestly seeks a partnership and synergy with the community rather than an exploitation of our beauty and resources in Brooklyn.

Like all of us, Maloney WANTS development. But he does NOT want secrecy, corruption and lies. And those are what we have been give by Ratner, Bloomberg and Pataki.

Now look. I have been told that this project is nothing more than free market. But it isn’t! It is a selective bid, not to mention a LOW BID. It involves the use of tax money. It has involved the threat, though not yet the use, of eminent domain to force the transfer of property from one private owner to another. None of this is free market! It is a collaboration, formed partly in secret with no input from the community, between government and a private businessman. This is the kind of collaboration between the rich and the powerful that the progressive movement was founded to oppose.

I would not say that there was no input from the community. And groups like ACORN are in favor of the project, though they have been heavily criticized for this. In fact Ratner has made a good show of interacting with certain community leaders and groups, getting them on board, and promising jobs and affordable housing. But there is no enforcement of these promises and the affordable housing is judged such that as property values go up, the affordable housing will rapidly cease to be affordable. It is not geared to the means of the community so much as being a certain amount below he market value…which will go up and out of the range of the community.

What Maloney does not even mention is the issues of the infrastructure. Traffic congestion, insufficient coverage from firehouses, inadequate schools and a grossly (literally) overtaxed sewage system are EXISTING problems in Brooklyn. Add on top of these existing problems an arena and seventeen massive skyscrapers, and you have a pretty disgusting mess. Even if there are upgrades around the Atlantic Yards project, the remainder of Brooklyn would still be affected by the added strains of the project. People talk about jobs. Well, don’t more schools, firehouses, upgrading the sewer system Borough wide and adding more public transit create jobs? And they improve the quality of life in the Borough. And the issue of fires brings up another problem that goes even beyond what Maloney covers. There already is a very surprising spike of fires throughout Brooklyn that may be due to arson and/or the neglect of these neighborhoods by the closing of firehouses. Some have even suggested that developers are burning down buildings that are inconvenient for them. This accusation seems likely in the case of the Greenpoint fire where the developer had several other convenient and suspicious fires happen to his property…probably covered by insurance. In the case of the area surrounding Atlantic Yards, there has been a particularly sharp increase in suspicious fires there and it is convenient for the developer who wants to portray the area as blighted. Beyond that, I cannot judge whether or now the old NY tradition of arson to drive out unwanted communities is at work. But, since I work in the triangle shirtwaist factory building, I quite aware that there is a longstanding link between the progressive movement and fire safety, particularly regarding poorer classes. Three politicians, Eric Adams, Bill Batson and Wellington Sharpe, each independently observed the suspicious nature of these fires and called them arson. Each of them observed that these fires are destroying the heart of historic black neighborhoods, threatening entire communities. Bill Batson went so far as to point out the convenience of these fires to developers and points out that many of these development projects are destroying the black history of Brooklyn. He used the Harriet Tubbman museum as an example and points out that if you destroy someone’s culture, you can do anything you want to them.

This threat to our heritage isn’t just affecting the black community. I would say that the Atlantic Yards Project, coupled with the many other giant development plans, changes the entire face or Brooklyn, taking away its great uniqueness. I come from Los Angeles. I am one of the few people who will admit loving Los Angeles. But it does not have much character. Brooklyn has a great character and the current style of overdevelopment destroys that character in large swaths of Brooklyn. Bill Batson calls it the Disneyfication (I think it should be spelled "Disnification," but most people disagree) of NYC through arson. A fellow local activist has called Atlantic Yards project in particular as placing a giant slice of Manhattan in the heart of Brooklyn. Manhattan is fine. But It ain’t Brooklyn.

The politician who I know who has most eloquently expressed what is happening is Chris Owens. He once described it as nothing less than "Losing Home", in essence losing our community, our uniqueness…our Brooklyn. We want development. Of course we want affordable housing and jobs. But the lies, underhanded and secret deals, the closing of our firehouses, the inadequate concern for our schools and infrastructure all combine to make us afraid that we are losing Brooklyn. The loss is much slower and less dramatic than the loss of large parts of New Orleans through criminal neglect. But there are very real parallels.

Progressives respect home, tradition, history and community. Those politicians who most respect progressive values are those who understand the real danger of Atlantic Yards style development. I honestly think that if our elected representatives (you listening Bloomberg, Markowitz? I thought not!) really laid down strict requirements for these development projects, developers would still be rushing to be in on the action. NYC is one of the world’s busiest and best cities and no developer will want to stay away. But if we neglect our schools and our fire safety, over tax our sewage system and roads, and lose our unique character that attracts so many tourists, we will no longer be one of the world’s busiest and best cities. We need a progressive vision for our city, not a vision that has to be formed in secret and covered by lies. That is why so many use Atlantic Yards as a measure for their support of a candidate. It cannot be the only measure. Tom Suozzi gets it when it comes to Atlantic Yards, yet I do not think he quite understands traditional progressive values. Denise O’Donnell didn't take the kind of stand that Sean Patrick Maloney has on Atlantic Yards, nor is she necessarily progressive. But she, along with Maloney, was still an excellent candidate for Attorney General, and I was having a hard time deciding between them. So this one project cannot be the only thing used to pick politicians to vote for. And I don't always agree with everything said and done by groups like Develop, Don't Destroy Brooklyn. But I really think that those who are perceived as excessively focused on Atlantic Yards may actually understand that what is at risk are many of the things that we, as progressives, value.

Well, I wasn't going to write about today's meeting of the Independent Neighborhood Democrats. Sure, Brooklyn politics has become a Daily Gotham staple in some ways, but what more can happen at IND that will interest readers?

Well, without much fanfare or contention, this was the most unexpected IND endorsement vote of the year.

First off, the expected results: candidates for Civil Court Judge spoke. I found all three of them sounded very good, very dedicated, very articulate. However, two were declared qualified by the county's independent judicial board and one was not. This, I think, determined the vote almost completely. The two candidates who had been declared qualified won the endorsement. Deana Douglas, who also won the Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats endorsement, won IND's endorsement easily. She combined both excellent qualifications and a qualified status by the independent board. Jacqueline Williams had the least impressive presentation style, but had excellent qualifications. Being a graduate of Yale and, more importantly to a Californian at heart like me, Berkeley, Ms. Williams was clearly qualified and indeed received a qualified status from the independent board and also received the IND endorsement. The third candidate, Robin Sheares, in some ways came off the best with an assured presentation style and considerable confidence. Even when she admitted that she received a "not qualified" status from the independent board, she said it with confidence and assurance! But she received a "not qualified status" for a reason. She is probably an excellent lawyer and would make an excellent judge, but is under investigation for allowing someone from New Jersey to use her address, possibly illegally, to get their kid into a Brooklyn school. Now this is a mixed thing to me. On the one hand, she may have done something illegal, which is not good in a judge. But, on the other hand, someone from New Jersey used her address to send their kid to a Brooklyn school! Well, THAT is something to be proud of! I wonder if it was PS 321...? Congratulations to Deana Douglass and Jackie Williams. To Robin Sheares: I hope your current issues can be cleared up eventually because I did find you impressive and competant.

Now...the other two endorsements were Governor and Attorney General. And BOY were these interesting.

Tom Suozzi spoke to IND. And he spoke amid impressive thunder and lighting outside! At times his points were punctuated by flashes of light and booms of thunder. I liked a great deal of what he said. He definitely got screwed at the State Convention and deserved better. He came off passionate, competent and an excellent candidate...for a Republican. He struck me like Bloomberg--someone who kind of is on the border between Democrat and Republican. He came out solidly against Atlantic Yards and the misues of eminent domain and that is not a Republican stand. But his speech was otherwise almost completely taken from the Republican book of talking points: run like an outsider even if you are an insider, talk about cutting taxes, run as a CEO, denegrate "Bloated Unions." Honestly, I think Suozzi has done wonders in Nassau and I am with Michael Bouldin that he would be DYNAMITE running against King for Congress in that district. If he ran for Congress we'd have a hell of a shot at ousting a nasty Republican who can't even stand up for New York State when it comes to Homeland Security funding with a borderline Republican/Democrat who is competent and passionate. But he isn't running against King. He is running against Spitzer.

Now, I have been a good member of IND in the past, but there is no question that I have been a controversial member recently. Well, I can deal with that. But tonight I spoke with the IND insiders in favor of Spitzer. I described Suozzi as an excellent quasi-Republican who I could respect...but wouldn't like to vote for. I argued, along with Alan Fleishman, Jo Ann Simon, and Joan Millman, for a Spitzer endorsement because we Suozzi was uncomfortably close to a Republican in style.

[UPDATE 1] I should add that one of the main points against Suozzi for club members, and I apologize for leaving this out, was his anti-marriage equality stand. He expressed respect for gay rights in general, supports "civil unions," and supported benefits for gay partners fairly early on. But he is against "gay marriage" for religious reasons. When asked where he stands on choice he came out solidly pro-choice. He was challenged how his religious beliefs seemed more flexible when it came to choice than to gay marriage his answer was to focus on the idea of making abortion safe, legal...and rare. I think his point was that abortion is something where there is a way to respect rights of women while also making abortion rare, a middle way, if you like. He would probably argue that civil unions would be the equivalent "middle way" with marriage equality, but I think most club members see this as more equivalent to "separate but equal."

Three camps argued for Suozzi. One pointed to his excellent record of taking a junk bond district to good standing as a sign of extreme competence. Then there was a horrendous Spitzer strongarming campaign against Suozzi that alienated many, combined with Spitzer never actually bothering to send anyone to talk with the club. Finally, there was the fact that Spitzer pretty much is, in words that upset some, "an asshole" who told activists opposing Atlantic Yards that he "didn't care" about their concerns. Jo Ann Simon pointed out that he DOES care enough to stand against the current Ratner Plan, but I think the basic message was that Spitzer was assuming victory and no longer cared enough for the concerns of actual voters...or even of local Democratic clubs.

[UPDATE 2] Some people remember Jo Ann specifically indicating that Spitzer had stated that he wasn't happy with the existing Ratner Plan but overall solidly supported it. However, some remember her saying that Spitzer solidly supported the plan AS IS and merely was willing to hear out opponants, but wasn't swayed. Since Jo Ann even specifically clarified what she had said this shouldn't be in dispute, but there does seem to be some uncertainty as to her exact words. Sorry if I am misrepresenting her words. I think the jist of what everyone agreed on was that Spitzer DOES support Ratner's plan overall. To what degree he pays attention to opponants (not at all, enough to spend half an hour listening but otherwise ignoring or actually wanting some minor changes) is minor because no one disputes that he is a very solid Ratner supporter. That is not at issue. What was disputed was to what degree he paid attention to voters and community members. The fact that Spitzer never bothered to even send a surrogate to speak to IND perhaps indicates how much he pays attention to the little people as much as anything else.

I supported Spitzer over Suozzi. But, to a collective gasp when it was annouced, Suozzi won the IND endorsement pretty soundly. I think this was a combination of anti-Atlantic Yards new comers who could, for the first time, vote at IND combined with IND old timers who were sickend by the Spitzer strongarm tactics at the State Convention. I, and many IND insiders, were the losers in this, but it DID represent the first solid agreement between some of the newcomers and some of the old timers. And, in all honesty, may well be a needed wakeup call to the State Party.

Then came the Attorney General race. There was a massive anti-Cuomo backlash. Again, Atlantic Yards interests teamed up with a majority of old timers to reject the massive strong arm tactics of the State Party and reject Cuomo. Cuomo, along with King, was rejected on the first ballot. The nasty tactics used at the State Convention were discussed and weighed heavily against Cuomo. People who read my stuff here know that IND insiders and newcomers have just had a massive civil war. But both pretty much agreed that they could not supprot Andrew Cuomo. Backlash time! The State party overplayed its hand and that has united IND to some degree.

On the second ballot Mark Green was eliminated. Let's face it. Green would make a good AG, but no one really likes him. He has been his own worst enemy for years now with temper tantrums and a style that alienates pretty much everyone.

It came down to Denise O'Donnel and Sean Patrick Maloney. Now at this point I was happy. I don't like Green or Cuomo. But I was resigned to either of them. I LIKE both Maloney and O'Donnell. They both strike me as EXTREMELY competent and passionate. They don't come off like "ordering leftovers" as one person put it in reference to Green and Cuomo. They come off fresh and well qualified. Sean comes of the more passionate of the two, with what seems like a brand new passion to fight Atlantic Yards (I intend to write about that later). Denise comes off slightly more solidly qualified that the others. And, according to a recent survey, 70% of lawyers in the state agree that she is the most qualified, State Party be damned. Well, I voted for Maloney through three ballots, though always felt a pull towards O'Donnell. On the second ballot, Maloney almost won, but didn't make the 50% plus one mark. So it went to a third ballot. On that third ballot, Denise O'Donnell won the IND endorsement soundly and I think that is just fantastic. Those who spoke for O'Donnell spoke most elequently and, despite my liking and respect for Maloney, O'Donnell just might well be the most qualified.

IND rebelled against the state party and endorsed Suozzi and O'Donnell. Without all the contentious arguement and infighting that occurred in the last two endorsement votes, IND delivered a surprise. Some of this may have been due to the fact that for the first time, the disenfranchised newcomers could vote and are making themselves felt. But I think a larger factor was the fact that many IND members were pissed at the State Party and it's arrogant, dirty tactics.

To me, this meeting was the first time that newcomers and oldtimers worked well together and I think great things are ahead if they can stay more or less together.

Wow.

Now that Andrew Cuomo has captured the state party's nod for AG, forcing all others to actually go out and petition, things are getting very hot very quickly. The Green campaign just sent out this:

I'd like to thank Tom Manton, Vito Lopez, Rich Schaffer, Jose Rivera and Jay Jacobs for their deals and threats at the behest of the Cuomo Machine. By bullying Democratic State Committee people in their counties whose only sin was wanting me as Attorney General, they have done me the favor of framing the fall race – an Independent Democrat versus a Machine Politician.

The problem is not just deals in May of 2006 but obligations created that would compromise him in 2007. How can he stand up to special interests and political insiders when that's how he got on the ballot? [Emphasis in original]

Ouch. Did Boss Tweed rise from the grave to assist?

The key number is not 25% at a Convention but 50% in a Primary. For this AG Democratic contest is comprised of two halves. Today the first half of pursuing political big shots concludes and the second half of talking to little shots called voters begins. Today their advantage ends and mine begins, for the other side can badger delegates but they can't badger 700,000 individual voters casting secret ballots.

As the contest moves from coercion to persuasion and principle -- from deals to democracy -- I couldn't be more confident that Democratic voters will choose a lifelong People's Lawyer who has already served in two attorney-general like offices over a housing manager with no serious credentials to succeed Eliot Spitzer as the State Attorney General. [Emphasis in original]

One can only imagine how poor Sean Patrick Maloney with his 0.4% of the vote must feel.

Personally, I think it makes for better candidates to force them to go out and prove that they have the support of voters in order to get on the ballot. That makes them stronger and puts them in touch with the people who are supposed to make these decisions – that would be "we the people".