Bob Kerrey, the former Senator (D) from Nebraska, is considering a run for mayor of NYC. Story here:
Former United States Senator Bob Kerrey, the president of the New School University and a Democratic candidate for president in 1992, said yesterday that he was considering a run for mayor of New York City, declaring that Michael R. Bloomberg had failed to fight Washington Republican policies that Mr. Kerrey said endangered the city's finances and security.
[...]
Aides to Mr. Bloomberg said they were surprised by Mr. Kerrey's comments. They said that just last week Mr. Bloomberg called Mr. Kerrey and asked him to head "Democrats for Bloomberg" - and Mr. Kerrey accepted.
[...]
His task would be daunting, should he decide to enter at this late date. For one thing, he would be far behind his Democratic rivals in raising money. For another, Mr. Kerrey has lived in New York for only four years, making him even more of a transplant than Mr. Bloomberg, who is from Boston.
[...]
Mr. Kerrey acknowledged last night that it might seem unusual to go, in the space of a week, from agreeing to head Democrats for Bloomberg to talking about challenging him this year. He said the shift reflected his own ambivalence about a mayor who he said was good in some ways, but flawed in others.
He said that he had not informed Mr. Bloomberg that he was thinking of running for mayor, or that he had decided against heading the committee. "I guess they know now," he said.
This is all fine and dandy. I'm sure Mr. Kerrey can find a lot of support for his candidacy from national Democrats. And I would not shed any tears if Mr. Bloomberg (who is a R-I-N-O) was forced out of office. However, there are some questions that need to be answered.
First of all, he's only lived in NYC for the last four years. Of course, Bloomberg isn't a New York native either, and Hillary Clinton didn't move to New York until just before her successful Senate campaign. Still, this "carpet-bagging" cannot be seen as a positive for his potential candidacy.
Second, he is considered by many to be a war criminal. This cannot play terribly well in anti-war New York City.
And then there is the fact that this guy called Bill Clinton an "unusually good liar" back when Bill was President. So he is unlikely to get much support from New York's favorite daughter, Hillary.
So, good luck Mr. Kerrey. New York politics being what they are, you'll need it!
You ain't in Nebraska anymore...
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - Temple Stark
Well, Hillary could only agree in this case regarding the lying statement. She and Bob Kerrey share many views, though.
IMHO New York needs to change some laws so they can get homegrown candidates representing their state again.
2 - Dave Nalle
That 'war criminal' link is pretty damned convincing. It helps a lot that the person gathering the accusations together is clearly an anti-war leftist who ought to find Kerrey politically sympatico, were it not for the baby murdering and all.
Dave
3 - Thad Anderson
It's hard to gauge the public's perceptions of Bloomberg. He's definitely been pretty independent-minded in terms of new policies - but one of the downsides of that may be that he's done at least one thing to piss off almost everyone.
As for Kerrey, I think you're right that the fact that he's lived here for only four years could be a huge obstacle to overcome, and to a greater degree than it was for Hillary. New York City is such a unique place, and the city's governmental structure is just very different from that of most cities - there are all kinds of divisions and agencies that even many states don't have. So it wouldn't surprise me if many people who voted for Hillary for NY Senator would perceive Kerrey as being too much of an outsider to be NYC Mayor.
As for Kerrey's allegedly being a "war criminal," that is an absurdly harsh way to treat mistakes someone made on the ground in Vietnam, in the heat of the action. Isn't the term "war criminal" usually reserved for the architects of pre-meditated and/or systemic war crimes? If that term is defined as someone who could conceivably be indicted under international law/treaties, I believe there is an intent requirement, and you'd also have to consider the precedent from war crimes prosecutions, which have been reserved for large-scale crimes. I doubt the guy at Antiwar.com cares, but I'm wondering if there is even a conceivable legal argument you could make for Kerrey being a "war criminal."
He's been very frank and honest about it all. Here's a good, long NY Times article about that:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/25/magazine/25KERREY.html?ex=1113969600&en=74b0fb8834e997c3&ei=5070
4 - NancyGail
Okay, so who's the Kerrey currently in Congress?
5 - Dave Nalle
Read the cited article, Thad. I'd agree that the fault mostly lies with his commanders, as the article concludes, but massacring a village of women and children and old people is still pretty reprehensible. You CAN disobey what you consider to be an unlawful order. Kerrey didn't make that choice.
Dave
6 - The Proprietor
Mr. Kerrey's in for a rude shock when he discovers that there are little things called "boroughs" in New York City, where most of the people actually live. After his extensive experience with geopolitical strategy, I'm sure that Mr. Kerrey's going to have a quite easy time dealing with garbage collection in Staten Island and repairing potholes on the Major Deegan.