5 Ridiculous Things That Happened During New York's Primary This Week

As you know, I could not blog about specific campaigns during the New York City primaries because I was working on one and am I'm not an idiot. That didn't stop me from really, really wanting to however. And there was MUCH to blog about. For example, an intern talking to the press (WHAT?) and the Weiner campaign firing back and calling her a "slutbag" (BIGGER WHAT?). Maybe it's because I couldn't write, but there were SO MANY things I wanted to write about. Here are 5 things that happened in the last week alone that I wanted to share with you:

1) Corey Johnson Ad on Grindr

Corey Johnson is an LGBT Activist who beat Yetta Kurland for the New York City Council seat vacated by Christine Quinn. Grindr is a gay, ahem "dating" app, popular in the Chelsea district in which Johnson was running. Now THAT's thinking outside the box. (Zing!)


2) Vito Lopez INSANE sexual harassment flyer

Vito Lopez, a disgraced former Assemblyman better known as the Gargamel of Brooklyn politics lost his bid for a city council seat on Tuesday. Not before someone circulated this disgusting victim-blaming flyer about Lopez's sexual harassment scandals. You know someone is trustworthy when the New York Times quote on their literature is, "Denies all charges." Not bragging, but the flyer went viral when my former boss and FOCS, City Councilman Brad Lander, tweeted it.


3) Lawrence O'Donnell's Anthony Weiner Interview

These final three stories involved Anthony Weiner for whom my schadenfreude steadily dissipated as his public breakdown went from gratifying to cringeworthy. However, I think this story actually makes Weiner look good. Like high schoolers hanging out with ugly people to appear more attractive, O'Donnell's hyper-aggressive line of questioning makes Weiner seem sane. He starts out with "What's wrong with you?" and it goes on from there.

4)Anthony Weiner not on the voter rolls

Even as Boards of Election go, the NYC BOE really seems to be in a class of its own when it comes to incompetence. Say what you will about the former candidate, he is a registered voter. VERY alarming considering that few voters who might find themselves in similar predicament have the same resources or motivation to vote as Weiner, who did ultimately get to cast a ballot. Our Finance Director had to leave her polling place because of massive machine malfunctions and return to vote later in the day. Ask not for whom the bell of disenfrachisement tolls, New York City, it tolls for thee.

5) Weinermobile

This is actually a picture I took a couple of weeks ago, but come on guys, brilliance! Zoom in to see the hot dog truck with pictures of cell phones and Weiner's face.


Time to go get glamorous and beautiful for our GOTV (Get Out the Vodka) party! I missed you guys!

Campaign Love and Mine,

Nancy

An Affair to Pretend Not to Remember

Nancy's Note: I cut this post in half because it tells two different stories about two different politicians. Stay tuned for part II.

Devotees will remember that I have a personal relationship with the phenomenon of the disgraced politician. While leading a recent organizer training, I found myself in the somewhat new position of having to explain who John Edwards is and why I revile him so. "Wow, you must really hate Bill Clinton," one organizer responded. Well, no. For one thing, Bill Clinton never made a liar out of me. He never funneled money to his mistress while habitually being late with my paycheck. And, this last one is somewhat debatable, he didn't put control of the presidency in jeopardy for the Democratic party. Still, this organizer's question touched a nerve. Where do I draw the line when it comes to infidelity and indiscretion perpetrated by my elected officials? This question has become particularly salient since two such politicians announced their candidacy in elections in which I will cast a vote. I plan not to vote for Elliot Spitzer or Anthony Weiner, although maybe not for the reasons one might think.

Bill Clinton had the good fortune of being done running for office by the time his infidelities took center stage. If he had been up for election in 1998 and I had not been 14 there is a good chance I would not have supported him. It isn't the infidelity I object to. Although I idolize Hillary Clinton, I don't pretend to know what goes on in other people's marriages. Besides, if she can forgive him, I certainly can. Moreover, when it comes to hiring an accountant or doctor, I want the person who will do the best job for me, not the person who is nicest to his or her spouse. Why should my choice in an elected official be any different? I would not have supported President Clinton because of the apparent power imbalance between him and Monica Lewinsky. She was a 22-year-old intern and he was President of the United States. You would be hard-pressed to find a clearer case for sexual harassment and abuse of power. The fact that he had been accused of other incidents of a similar nature does not help his case.

When we talk about Clinton in the liberal community, we tend to ignore the scandal that was once the focal point of his career. Meanwhile, Monica Lewinsky's political future was doomed the moment their affair became public. To this day Lewinsky is the poster-child for intern jokes, while Clinton has gone on to have an illustrious post-Presidential career. All this despite the fact that Clinton's position of power and responsibility made him far more culpable than Lewinsky. Had this been another man, another profession or another time Monica Lewinsky would be considered a victim.

That said, my fervent admiration for and slight crush on present-day Bill Clinton is well-documented. His commitment to ending climate change and improving global health, continued support of Democratic candidates and apparently reformed private life have regained him my esteem. Clinton is exceptional for his charisma, ability to deliver a nuanced message and commitment to progressive causes. We have not seen such a politician since he left office and likely won't for a long time. I mention Bill Clinton's exceptional intelligence, skill and charm because the of the comparisons we are likely to hear from Spitzer and Weiner as they attempt to rebrand themselves. To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, you sirs are no Bill Clinton.

Before he resigned from Congress, Anthony Weiner was often likened to Bill Clinton. He was known for his wit as a liberal bulldog. His wife, Huma Abedin, worked for Secretary of State Clinton and President Clinton even officiated at their wedding. Again, Weiner's infidelity is not the problem, if it was infidelity at all. Honestly, I could imagine being Huma Abedin, being several months pregnant working a full schedule in an often long-distance marriage and my husband saying to me, "Honey I want to wack it to some facebook chats about how hot I must have looked in my Bar Mitzvah pictures" and me saying, "Knock yourself out." My problem is Weiner's spectacularly poor judgment in the execution. When your career is on the line, one would think you'd be more careful with your tweets. When Weiner resigned, I argued that his judgement, poor though it was, was not reason enough for him to be ousted. If we kicked people out of elected office for having bad decision making skills, half of Congress would have to resign. At the same time, I am not running to vote for someone who could be so professionally careless.

When the smoke cleared it became semi-public knowledge that one of the reasons Weiner did not receive more cover from Democrats was that he was personally unpleasant to work with. I heard stories of him screaming and even throwing office equipment at his staff (by which I mean the people who work for him) an accusation I take seriously as a political staffer. In the end Weiner just doesn't have the track record that a legend like Bill Clinton does. For all his soapboxing, what did Anthony Weiner actually accomplish? Making Anthony Weiner famous, which evidenced by the fact that he entered a crowded primary already replete with qualified candidates, seems to still be his goal.

About Last Night...

Obama is still not losing the Jewish vote.

A couple of months ago, I argued that President Obama had not lost the Jewish vote, despite a speech he made earlier this summer advocating a return to the 1967 Israel/Palestine borders. After yesterday's special election in which Republican Bob Turner beat Democrat David Weprin in the race to (wait for it...) fill Anthony Weiner's traditionally Democratic seat in a heavily Jewish district, I stand by my position: President Obama is not losing anything that he ever had.

Even before it happened, Democratic alarmists/Republicans/most media outlets, were pushing the narrative that yesterday's election would be a referendum on President Obama in general and more specifically his policies on Israel. But President Obama was not running in this election and yesterday's results are attributable to qualities specific to this district and these candidates.

First off, there's David Weprin himself. Now that the election is officially over, I feel more comfortable voicing my impression of Weprin as deeply unlikeable. I don't remember the details of our conversation so much as I remember the candidate coming off as conceded and slightly creepy. And I know I'm not alone. An LA Times article highlighting Former Mayor Koch's role in the referendum narrative contains this little gem regarding Weprin's mustache, '"Really … you look sleazy," said Pearl Siegelman, a Democratic district leader in Brooklyn's Sheepshead Bay.' My point here is not to engage in the least impressive name dropping ever (apologies in advance, there's another one coming up), but to contrast the off putting Weprin with highly charismatic Barack Obama and Anthony Weiner.

In addition, several sources have referenced the fact that Weprin, like many of yesterday's voters, is an Orthodox Jew. I do vividly remember shaking hands with Weprin, a no-no for highly observant Jews, and I don't remember him wearing a yarmulke. Far be it for me to define another person's Judaism, Weprin may be well observant and may rightfully consider himself Orthodox, but not in same way that Assemblyman Dov Hikind and the Jews in that district do. As this article points out:

"The Democrats originally thought they were doing themselves a favor by nominating Weprin, himself an Orthodox Jew. There were jitters about the Jewish vote at the start of the race, so...the Democrats cynically slapped Weprin on the ballot to ensure that they could use his Judaism as a hedge against a potential threat from a non-Jewish Republican candidate. Instead, Weprin’s clumsy attempts to play up his Orthodox identity contributed to the implosion of his campaign. Yes, he talked about his Jewishness and always wore a yarmulke when speaking to Orthodox audiences, but he also voted to legalize gay marriage. In fact, he not only voted for gay marriage, he gave a speech on the floor of the state assembly in which he claimed that his religion supported his vote."

I've also encountered Assemblyman Hikind in my professional past and here is what I can you about him:

Number one, that dude needs like half a reason to not endorse a Democrat. In fact in 2008 he endorsed McCain for President and before that he endorsed George W. Bush. Again, it's hard to claim that President Obama is "losing" something he never had. Hikind did, however, endorse Weprin for Comptroller in 2009.

Second, Hikind and his constituents are extremely anti-marriage equality. In 2009, Assemblyman Hikind endorsed the City Council candidate I managed despite the fact that my candidate was pro-equality. It was a HUGE DEAL even though all the viable candidates were pro-equality and mine was the only practicing Jew in the five-way race. The association very nearly resulted in scandal for both Hikind and my candidate, but was endured because of what each brought to the table for the other. Assemblyman Hikind is highly attuned to the needs and moods of his district (not necessarily a bad thing). The reason he chose to endorse my candidate was because of a track record of securing low income housing (a big deal in those neighborhoods) and a commitment to bring resources to local yeshivas and other community institutions. At the time, marriage equality was less imminent in New York and certainly not prominent on the agenda for a City Councilman. If it had been, you can bet Hikind would have endorsed someone else. Last but not least, Hikind wields a considerable amount of power in his district and in the New York City Orthodox Jewish community at large. When my candidate secured Hikind's endorsement (just before I was hired onto the race) I was told that we had in effect secured the Orthodox vote.

So what changed about Weprin between 2009 and 2011? It wasn't his relationship to Israel, it was his recent pro-equal marriage vote and corresponding comments. How do I know? Not only because of the evidence presented above, but because Dov Hikind said so:

"Hikind, a staunch supporter of Israel, did not employ this argument when he explained his decision. He emphasized that Weprin had lost his vote by bringing in his religion to back his vote for the gay marriage law that carried the New York legislature in June. The fact that he backed the law at all cost Weprin Orthodox votes.

'I will not support David Weprin,' said the Brooklyn state Assemblyman. 'Weprin basically used his Jewish orthodoxy to say gay marriage is OK. He used his orthodoxy to say gay marriage is kosher. That crossed the line," Hikind added.

And since Hikind is so lockstep with his constituents it is reasonable to assume this goes for them as well.

Furthermore, if yesterday's election were truly a referendum on President Obama and not the peculiarities of a specific candidate and district, then Democrats would not have maintained all six of the contested New York State Assembly seats.

Finally, if President Obama had been losing the "Israel vote" (distinct, I would argue, from the "Jewish vote") he is on his way to gaining it back. While all this was going on, President Obama was making a statement against a United Nations vote for Palestinian statehood. "If this came to the Security Council we would object very strongly, precisely because we think it would be counterproductive."

So there you have it. President Obama is STILL NOT LOSING THE JEWISH VOTE. Now let's take a moment to mourn the end off all the Weiner puns and then move on.

How can you replace Weiner?

Oh hey. I've been so busy that I actually forgot we have a special election going on, right here in my new/old home state! It is a crying shame that we are even in this position because Anthony Weiner should never have resigned. Not that tweeting your penis is behavior fitting of a Congressman (or anyone), but neither is lying about global warming and they do that all the time. I've met David Weprin and well...let's just say I found him less than charming and not just because he looks like a villian in a childrens movie (SRSLY.) However, I firmly believe that that seat needs to be held by a Democrat... (specifically Anthony Weiner but what's done is done) and that we cannot afford to lose any more seats, so if you live in that district make sure to vote on this Tues the 13th!

Alas, Weiner! We hardly knew ye!