CityHallNews.com

Stewed Chicken and Carrot Juice with Yvette Clarke

The junior Congresswoman discusses the Clarke brand and being a ‘Tupperware sister’

By Charlotte Eichna

Council Member Yvette Clarke emerged victorious from a heated four-way primary to become the de facto winner of the general election to represent the 11th Congressional District, a historic seat created during the 1960s to increase minority representation. She fills the shoes of Shirley Chisholm, the first African-American woman elected to Congress, and Major Owens who held the seat since 1983.

Clarke sat down at Mike’s International Restaurant, a popular Jamaican eatery in Brooklyn, to talk about life ahead in Washington, having Una Clarke as her mother and Council predecessor, mending fences with Chris Owens and what’s in her refrigerator.

City Hall: Do you have any recommendations?
Yvette Clarke: It’s all Caribbean. Spicy or non-spicy?

 CH: Spicy.
YC: Okay. God bless you. You’re talking jerk-anything or curried anything will have some nice spice in it. Everything else is just pretty much in a stewed-type of form. That would be authentically Jamaican...

CH: Your name came up in ‘City Hall’s poll of who was the most fashionable Council Member. Can you describe your sense of style?
YC: I would say, professional, urban, Caribbean female. I guess that’s the best way to say that.

CH: When you go to Washington, will you take the New York edge off of it?
YC: No, no. I am representative, I am going to the House of Representatives and I understand decorum and certainly will look at all those protocols and bear that in mind… But I think it’s important that I bring my own personal flair, for lack of a better term. I enjoy wearing different things, things that are off the beaten path.

CH: Well that is a cool jacket.
YC: It was a birthday present. I was like, ‘This is hot! I can definitely work with this!’

CH: How important did you think it was for an African American to be representing the 11th Congressional District?
YC: I put it in a historical context of how the district evolved. It was initially the 12th Congressional District with the first representative of the district being Shirley Chisholm. She was the first black woman to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives. I think at the time when voting rights districts were very rare in the North, there was an acknowledgement, I guess, from the power that be that there were communities around the nation that were prepared to be self-determining, to a large extent, in how they operated politically. And there were so many ways in which it was hard for that to come of age—financially it takes a lot, if you’re not a part of the old boys’ network it’s even harder to emerge politically… So there’s the importance of a voting rights district,…and it’s something I inherited—I felt that I had inherited…

I thought that [race] was a factor. There was no getting away from it. And as much as we’d like to in our society think that we’ve gotten to the point where all voices are at the table, I can tell you from first-hand experience being the only black woman going in to Congress from the New York State delegation, that there’s still a lot that we have to learn about power-sharing.

CH: So you’d argue that it’s more important for you as an African American to represent a unique voice, versus some people who argued that David Yassky, for example, had a stronger record to run on.
YC: We have to bear in mind that—and I stress this a lot—I’m going into the House of Representatives, which is different from the Senate…Meeting all of my colleagues from around the nation, you’re really talking about the house of representatives. These are folks who are coming from communities. It’s more local. And in that, you get to the essence of those communities, and what they share in common, their common destiny, their cultural diversity—all that is sort of wrapped up in those individual who come there. And I felt that I was much more representative of this constituency than any of the folks who ran in the race, not withstanding David Yassky. But certainly because David Yassky moved in to the district with such a large amount of money, his familiarity—let’s put it that way—with the entire dynamic of the constituency, he had a huge learning curve on it. I grew up in the curve. There’s a difference.

CH: There are three Republicans in the City Council. How is it going to be interacting with some of the Republicans in the House who are far more conservative than your current colleagues?
YC: It’s getting to know everybody and the nuances that are involved with their decision-making process. You’ve got to approach it individuals at a time. I think for this district, it’s finding those common linkages, if any, and using that as a base for establishing relationships. You can’t approach it from any kind of stereotypical picture that people would tend to paint of certain individuals or certain regions of the country. I think I’m prepared for that because of the diversity of this district and because I just don’t jump to conclusions about people. I know what it’s like when people jump to conclusions about who Yvette Clarke is and what that means by extension for how she’ll represent her district. The thing is to go with an open mind. And to build coalitions where you can. It’s really a consensus body and your goal is to build as much of a consensus in your favor and in favor, by extension, of your constituency, than the other guy.

CH: What was it about your campaign for Congress that voters responded to?
YC: I think they responded to the Clarke brand—I’m just going to put it out there now because it’s pretty much the fact that there is a certain reverence for what my predecessor has done in this neck of the woods. For many, it’s a sense of pride. For others, it’s a sense of awe. For others, it’s like ‘That lady’s crazy!’ [Laughs]. I think that was part of it, and having had that as a foundation to serve in the Council. Being outspoken in the Council and being connected to the 40th Council District at just about every level gave me I think a competitive edge. People knew ‘Clarke’ and established relationships, really, with my office and with my family, that I think gave me a competitive edge—and I think it was underestimated by most folks.

CH: Do you think that those political family connections are a little unfair because someone else with talent but no name recognition might be kept out of public office?
YC: No, because it’s a double-edged sword. In politics, people hate entitlement.

CH: Well, it depends who’s getting the entitlement.
YC: Exactly—I guess so—and I don’t think it’s healthy to believe in entitlement. I think every candidate has to be judged on their merit. I can remember running in ’01 for Council was a real challenge. There were some who would give me the benefit of the doubt because of my mom, and there other who were like, ‘Under no circumstances—this woman has done nothing.’ And they just didn’t know me and the work that I—cause I had actually been going down a career path of public service that I think rivaled anyone in that race. It added an extra support system that my mom was the Council Member before me, but I think that I had to prove that I was worthy of people’s support more so than other folks because of that…

Now you have the parent dynamic. That’s a lot of pressure as well, because in parenting, people believe that well, your parent gives you a certain level of guidance. And that’s true. But at the point at which I got into running for elected office, I was already grown. So everything that my parents could give me in terms of values and guidance and support is tempered by the fact that I’m already an adult who has to make decisions that I feel are in the best interests of myself and the community.

CH: Does your mom give you advice?
YC: Oh yeah! All the time.

CH: Do you take it?
YC: Sometimes. I’ll put it to you this way: I take it into consideration.

CH: Is she often on the mark.
YC: Sometimes.

CH: Is there anyone else in your family who’s interested in politics?
YC: Not in elected office. They always could be interested in politics. Not that I’m aware of. I’ve got three nephews coming up. They’re in their teens right now. My brother, he’s got three kids, the oldest being 18 who has expressed no interest right now, that I know of, in running for office.

[WAITRESS COMES. CLARKE ORDERS]

YC: Stewed chicken, rice and beans, dark meat, creamy Italian — no? —oil and vinegar, okay, I’ll go with that.
Waitress: Anything to drink?
YC: Carrot juice, please.

CH: Your mom is now working for a public affairs firm.
YC: She started her own consulting firm…What she’s looking at doing…is working with governments in the Caribbean to do investment—having investors from the U.S. to help them with the development that’s happening in their nations.

CH: Will she be overlapping with any issues you’ll be working with at all?
 YC: No, we’re very conscious of any appearances of conflict of interest. I don’t believe that there will be—and certainly we’ll be getting guidance from counsel on things of that nature should anything of question come up. 

CH: Do you have any major goals you’re looking to accomplish during your first term?
 YC: There are a lot of goals. Just sort of building out a great office infrastructure, in particular, to make sure that we’re really meeting the needs of the constituents. One of the things about this district is that there’s a lot of support that’s required from the federal government with the large immigrant population. Certainly there are enough of our folks who receive federal entitlements in some form or fashion—veterans benefits or Medicaid, Social Security—those are the type of constituent concerns that you want to make sure are handled by professional staff.

You want to make sure that in the district we meet each particular area. Because I’m going now using my Council district and sort of building out from there, I’m right in the heart. And so there are parts of the district that aren’t as familiar with me, and making sure that we have the appropriate linkages to rapidly respond to any concerns. It’s hard with a five-day work week in Washington, so that’s why the Council district infrastructure has to be really, really tight and upgraded and that’s what I’m looking to do.

But secondly, we’re going to hit the ground running. Nancy Pelosi has at least indicated a very aggressive first hundred days. And so just sort of wrapping my brain around what kind of energy that’s going to require, what I need in Washington in terms of staffing to make sure that I’m in the loop in the part of helping further that agenda. And especially where it’s in connection with the desires of the people of the 11th Congressional—there were a lot of national issues that came up during the race that I know are priorities for this district. The Iraq War and our disengagement was a huge piece, and that I can say across the board, throughout the Congressional district, was a major concern. Immigration reform is back on the table, being able to shape that in a substantive way is going to be really, really important for me.

And then I just have some priorities that I like to see in terms of community development initiatives, particularly in I believe some of the areas that have real capacity-building issues. I’m talking about East Flatbush, Brownsville, parts of Bed-Stuy that I represent. There’s a lot of poverty in those areas and I want to really address that through whatever means we can in organizing people on the ground who have been doing work, working with my colleagues at the city and the state level to really map out a way in which we can, again, maximize on the infrastructure that exists, but also fill any gaps in any of that infrastructure to address the bread-and-butter issues: economic justice, education, housing, healthcare.

CH: Are you working on a transition with outgoing Congressman Major Owens’ staff?
YC: We haven’t really interacted with his staff as much as we’ve had—I have had—a number of conversations with the Congressman in terms of transition support. So I have a good sense of a point of departure with respect to building on his legacy and sort of bringing my own experiences there.

CH: How is your relationship with him? You interned in his office in college, and then you challenged him for his seat. Your mom also challenged him, and he helped create Council District 40, which your mom represented. You recently defeated his son to become Owens’ successor in Congress. You guys have this very dramatic relationship.
YC: You know, I never really looked at it from the drama perspective. But I guess from people looking in from the outside, you could assume a lot of drama is there. And you know what? At times there is drama. But I understand how to separate politics from government and governing. And so, to the extent that there were some corns mashed on, I’m trying to put the healing balm on those right now for the greater good of the community, which I think is really important once we get through the political season. Particularly in a town like New York City, where it’s all Democrat, people are constantly stepping on each other’s corn politically. The goal is, beyond that, how do you get to the point where you say, ‘Well what’s in the greater good of the community?’ And I think we—I have reconciled myself in that respect. I think there were some really valid issues that have been brought up over time about transition leadership and succession leadership. And we’re at the point of succession leadership now. And there’s a lot that the Congressman has put in place that I hope to build on. There’s some things where I felt that there was a deficit that I was going to have to build up.

CH: Where was that?
YC: I would say the deficit areas would be sort of a much more well-rounded, inclusive, deliberative infrastructure. For instance, again, the immigrant population is very diverse. So you want to make sure that at the table of conversation…that diversity is reflected…

Some of it is really generational as well. I’m 42. He’s 70 or 71. I’m reflecting another generation which has its own destiny to fulfill. It doesn’t negate—because again, I have put a lot of efforts into history, in the historic context in which we operate. It’s from understanding that past historical legacy that you take from that what is applicable in this day and age and you build upon it. You know some of the struggles remain the same—they’re just more complex now because we’ve become more complex as a society.

CH: Would you consider yourself friends with Congressman Owens?
YC: I wouldn’t say ‘friends’ just because I’ve always seen him more as an elder, so here we go into upbringing. In my household, your friends tend to be people in your generation. You will associate with certain people based on whatever goals and aspirations you have, but there is a certain level of separation between what you would consider to be a friend, what you would consider to be an advisor, an associate. I would consider the Congressman certainly to be in an advisory capacity and someone whom I’ve had to associate with politically. I would consider Chris [Owens, Major Owens’ son] to be more of a friend.

CH: Are you and Chris friends now?
 YC: We’re mending fences, licking wounds. You come out of a political situation where I felt personally—there was a lot of nonsense that took place. It didn’t do the constituency any good and it certainly, if you wanted to maintain a certain level of friendship and camaraderie, did not lend a lot to that. But I’m beyond that. I’m really beyond that. I guess I’m in a position to do that, to be more…

CH: You won.
YC: That’s right [laughs]. But I think it’s important because I don’t think it serves us as Democrats to be petty. The agenda is ultimately to serve the people.

CH: When was the last time you and Chris talked?
YC: I went to the Congressman’s—there was a celebration, and a reception and dinner for him [Major Owens]. They billed it as a sort of farewell and a celebration of him and I ran into Chris there. And you know, we embraced and talked about, you know—sitting down, talking with each other when we have an opportunity. We’ve had several conversations since the election and have met on several occasions. And he’s his father’s close confidant as well. And I always remind him I was at his wedding, so… [laughs].

I wish everyone who was in this race well. And I hope that they will not miss the opportunity to interact and have conversations with me about things that they feel are important, that they may feel I don’t have a lens to right now.

CH: So you’d be open to having them come to you and make suggestions.
YC: Yeah, sure, definitely. You can’t see everything. You know, I’m fortunate that I have been in elected office before and I consider myself to be a consensus-builder. I think that’s more important, I think the people deserve that, you know.

CH: Did you think Clarence Norman was a good county leader?
YC: I didn’t interact with the county much, so I can’t really speak to it. If you’re like a district leader, you would have much more interaction with and understanding of the inner workings of the county. We have always been in an insurgent situation here from my mother to me. I’ve had relationships with Clarence Norman as my Assemblyman—I grew up in his Assembly District. And certainly [when I was] an aide to two state representatives, there were always meetings and interactions. And I remember when he was first elected. We were part of a support system that elected him as the Assemblyman. So I can’t really speak to what that county leadership business is about—I’m still trying to sort of understand those dynamics as we go along. Even with Vito Lopez, cause I knew of him again as an Assemblyman... And the organization is evolving under his leadership almost as we speak.

CH: Was it disappointing that the Assembly Member who you grew up under was convicted for financial misdeeds?
YC: It is disappointing. You can’t help but sort of reflect on how he must feel because certainly no one wants to end their career in public office that way. And I’m sure when he was at the beginning of his bright-eyed career of being the Assemblyman, he couldn’t have envisioned himself getting to that—or maybe he could. I don’t know.

CH: You’re an optimist.
YC: Yes I am. Eternally so. But you know, I’m looking at what’s happening with a lot of the politicians around me and I’m hoping to use that as—I always try to live vicariously through others. If other people have had to go and feel the fire, I don’t necessarily have to do it. I can use their experience to avoid that, right?...

I look at Clarence Norman, I look at Alan Hevesi—these are all men, and many, over time, who I’ve watched their careers, and at some point or another felt like they have given good service and I think that, being the eternal optimist, is the side that I hold on to. And I recognize that any human being is frail enough to get into a situation like that. And you have to recognize when that time has come for you, if it ever comes.

CH: You’re single. Compared to your female colleagues who are married, do you have it easier because you’re not being pulled by a family life?
YC: No. Everyone lives their life differently in terms of individuals. What happens with me, I get sucked into this vortex of being accessible to everyone all the time. So my personal life actually suffers as a result of that. Because it’s like well, you know if I’m dating someone—which I’m not going to divulge…

It’s walking that balance, and reassuring that individual that you’re still a priority for me. And having someone in your life that understands that is a unique person. Because I can go from nine in the morning to 12 midnight, seven days a week and no one would care. If people know I’m accessible, if I were to say, ‘I gotta take this time to get my nails done,’ then it’s like, ‘Oh, how dare she!’ The demand for you is actually I think a little bit more invasive of your personal privacy time. They understand how important it is to them, they understand even more so if you’re raising children or if you’re married, but when you’re single it’s like, please.

CH: It must be really hard to meet a person to date when you’re so busy, and then on top of that someone who accepts how busy you are.
YC: I’ve been fortunate. Let’s put it that way…When I’m at home, I’m Yvette. I’m not Congresswoman Clarke, I’m not Council Member Clarke, I’m Yvette. And I never lose sight of Yvette. When it’s all said and done and for whatever reason under whatever circumstances succession happens with me, I have to be Yvette. And I don’t lose sight of that. At all. Ever. Under any circumstances.

CH: So what do you do to be Yvette?
YC: I dress like this! No, I’m just joking. I make my home my sanctuary. I interact with the friends that call me Yvette. I interact with family that calls me Yvette, I interact with neighbors that call me Yvette. Now they’ve gotten into this ‘Miss Yvette’ thing. I don’t know what that’s about. But from the younger kids, I’ll take it… Depending on what environment I’m in, I refer to myself as Yvette. So that I remember. If it’s a professional environment with something that is official, then I’m Congresswoman Clarke. If it’s, you know, ‘Let’s run to the mall,’ it’s Yvette. They’re not going to give me no special parking spaces, you know what I’m saying? You don’t want people saying you’re taking advantage of the title.

CH: Do you cook at all?
 YC: I haven’t in a very, very, very long time. I have to admit to that.

CH: Are you a take-out kind of gal?
YC: Oh man, take-out is the word for me. Take-out and luckily I have this great network, and they’re always cooking. I mean, I am the Tupperware sister. I will like show up at Aunt Pansy’s house, or Thanksgiving—it’s like, ‘Keep the dressing!’…The microwave is my friend.

CH: So what’s in your fridge now? Ten different Tupperware containers?
YC: Right now I think I have a bucket of Kentucky that’s maybe about two days old; half a birthday cake from a birthday celebration I had in November so I think that’s done; and some Haitian cuisine: a Haitian clergy group honored me about a week ago, so that’s done, too. That’s about it.

CH: Are you going to get an apartment in D.C.?
 YC: Yes. As a matter of fact, I’m hoping to close on it between today and tomorrow. I was in D.C. on Tuesday. Luckily I have a first cousin who I guess would be the closest to being a sister if I had one who’s been in D.C. for years, she works for E.P.A., she’s owned homes on the Hill, so she was connected enough to help me and she’s like sort of my agent…

What I’m not accustomed to is operating two households and having to pay New York City prices for an apartment. It’s really expensive to live in D.C., especially in proximity to the Hill.

CH: You were the author of the Restroom Equity Act. Do you have a really bad bathroom line story? What was the defining moment for you?
YC: It was actually around this time of year. It was an observation mixed with a practical experience... Because you stand on line for like everything this time year, everything. And then, in the midst of it, you have to go to the bathroom. And you’re thinking about, ‘I don’t have enough time, Christmas is 24 hours away,’ you know, ‘And I haven’t done this, and I haven’t done that.’ You’re standing on line with young women, old women, women who really don’t have to use the bathroom but have to take the kids—and I’m saying, why are we standing in line? You look at the men’s room, no one’s on line over there. Women are conspiring to use the men’s room. And I’m like, there are ways that we can alleviate this, because at the same time the city was reviewing its building codes and we knew that there was precedent in other parts of the nation for restroom equity. And I said, well, you know, we had a consultation over at the Council with the counsel to my committee action. He’s like, you know, we can legislate that.

CH: Have you checked out the bathrooms in the Capitol yet?
YC: It’s funny, I just had a conversation with another reporter about it. What we’re going to find is historic landmark buildings, and what they’ve done to accommodate women obviously comes from a male perspective. Like the fact that—it was just brought to my attention and I haven’t had the opportunity to experience it personally myself—I was told that the Members’ only women’s bathroom, there are only two ways to get there from the floor. One is to go through the minority leader’s office. Or the other is to cut across Statuary Hall, which is like a tourist’s dream. The men’s bathroom, however, is like a few feet away from the floor. You don’t have to interact with all of the others in order to do your business and get back. So it would have seemed to me that not withstanding what I understand is a very luxurious women’s restroom facility, there would have been something in place for practicality…

It was a male-dominated institution for so long. Even if the men were married, and their wives were there, it just wouldn’t dawn on them, I don’t think—obviously, it hasn’t, right?—to set something up a little bit more convenient. And so, you know, again historical context. Going into a male-dominated environment and when the founding fathers did the layout, got the architectural renderings, there were no women’s restrooms at all. And when it dawned on them, it was like, ‘This looks like a nice space. We could put a chandelier in there, we can do this, that, the other. And it’s on the same floor, let’s do it there.’ No one said, ‘Let’s talk to a woman. Now, if you were a Congresswoman, and we set up the bathroom here, would that be convenient for you?’ A simple conversation could have probably solved it. And it was probably also—I’m just guessing, I’m thinking outside the box—maybe there was a woman consulted. And she was told, ‘Look, we’re going to set you up with the most luxurious lounge. You’ll have furniture, mirrors, chandeliers.’

There’s still a way to bring restroom equity there, as far as I’m concerned. I don’t know what the dynamics are in terms of plumbing and infrastructure. But restroom equity really was about how do you arrange things in a way in which it takes into account all of the factors that women deal with, with respect to the utilization of restroom facilities. And what we realized is that, we simply need to have more of them. And so if we had an additional women’s room on the floor that would then lend itself to much more privacy but didn’t have all the trappings of the mega-lounge, I think women would use that…Because there’s some times when you just want to get in and out to take care of business. There are other times when you want to fix your makeup and that’s fine, too…You have a choice, and the whole thing is expediency, particularly for women who are working in that environment.

CH: Have you ever used the men’s room because the women’s room line has been too long?
YC: Yes, I have. And I’ve encouraged others to do the same. I’ve been a lookout. And I think we all have been socialized to do that, actually, to a certain degree. Some families may be a bit too hoity-toity to ever acquiesce to that, but bladder control is relative.

CH: Hillary Clinton has been reaching out to the New York Congressional delegation feeling out support for a possible presidential bid. Has she contacted you at all?
YC: She has reached out to me. We haven’t connected yet. And I don’t know if that’s the reason why she’s calling. I know that she sent me congratulatory letters and she’s talked about our offices working together for the constituency. I don’t know if I’ve gotten a political call yet, or if it’s a governmental call.

CH: Would you support her running for president?
YC: What I think is important right now is for me to get a sense of the landscape of what’s happening in the Democratic Party before I make any commitment. She hasn’t even announced yet. So right now I think it’s just important to keep my ears to the ground and sort of keep my finger on the pulse of what the landscape is actually going to look like. I think it’s pretty clear that she’s going to run. But you never know. In politics, things are so fluid so quickly.

CH: Could you give George Pataki a grade for his job as governor?
YC: I’ll put it to you this way: I think that the meter had run out on his leadership. It had run out of time. And at some point people’s personal political endeavors override their governmental responsibilities, and I think that that meter ran out some time ago, too. Beyond that, I don’t know how to necessarily grade him. I can say that for the city of New York, we did not benefit as much as we could have with a much more cooperative governor—as we should have, given what we faced on 9/11.

CH: Pataki made some inroads to the African American community in Brooklyn. Did you help out with that?
YC: No, I supported Carl McCall for governor during that period and I didn’t really interact with [Pataki] that much as a Council Member because the leadership of the Council basically did whatever negotiations and I think they relied a lot more on Shelly Silver to have those conversations with ‘three men in a room.’

CH: Does Pataki have a shot at a presidential bid at all? YC: I don’t underestimate anything in politics. Because when Bill Clinton was running from Arkansas, no one saw him coming. Some people did. Some people were on board very early. As a matter of fact, my mom was on board very early. She was an FOB [Friend of Bill]. He wasn’t on my radar. It’s not like someone I would have picked up.

CH: So don’t cross Pataki off? YC: Will he win in the end? No, because the Democrats are winning [laughs]. But how will the Republicans position themselves in the rest of the nation to come up with their nominee? They have a very diverse bench right now from McCain to Giuliani to Pataki. They’re all different types of characters—I’m sure there’s some other folks that I’m missing. I don’t have time to do all that studying right now, I’m trying to get carpet [laughs].

CH: Have you been subjected to hazing by any of your senior colleagues yet?
YC: No. They’ve been so lovely. I’m like, am I missing something? I was like an adopted—I don’t want to say little sister, but junior member. Everyone has extended themselves and has been wanting to be so helpful. Just so helpful that I’m afraid to almost accept some of it so I don’t offend anybody. I just got to let everyone help, or don’t let anyone help.

But Charles Rangel, the senior of our delegation, has really stepped up to be that person. And a lot of the members of the CBC [Congressional Black Caucus] have been really reaching out to look at that. Congressman Anthony Weiner—he and his office, they have been like a part of an extended family. We have a lot in common. His brother went to my high school.

CH: Rangel has talked about introducing a draft. Is that something that you would be open to?
YC: You know what? My instinct is to say no. But I think I would want to hear more of the debate around it. I understand where he’s coming from, but I’ve just seen the privilege in this nation whittle their way out of everything and it always falls back on the folks who don’t have the connections to carry the burden most of the time. And I don’t know, unless his bill is like tight, like, ‘Unless you’re dying, you gotta go out to defend our country,’ I’m inclined to say that I don’t know that that’s necessarily it.
But we’re stuck in this situation... The president remains adamant on the number of troops he wants to see go into Iraq. I don’t know where we’re going to get people from. We’ve got Afghanistan we’re trying to deal with. There’s still parts of the world where we’re still a monitoring and very important presence and we just don’t have enough people going into the service right now. Because then you’re telling people they’ve got to be doing additional tours of duty and each tour of duty has gotten more dangerous than the one before… As a policy person, I’d want to look at the final details of what we’re talking about.

CH: What do you say to the people who think that the Atlantic Yards project is going to benefit a rich guy, that the infrastructure is not there to support it, and that it’s totally out of context for the neighborhood?
YC: I think they have some valid concerns. And I think that it’s up to those of us who have access to the developer to get from him and his team how he plans to address these issues. As long as they remain outstanding issues that we haven’t come to a meeting of the minds around on, they will continue to be issues…

I haven’t gotten a good sense—and that’s not to say that they have to telegraph everything to me—but I haven’t really been brought up to speed with the latest in terms of responses to those concerns around affordable home ownership, traffic mitigation. I’ve certainly to a certain degree have deferred to the Assemblyman for the area, Hakeem Jeffries, who has his finger on the pulse, because that’s like his thing. And he’s also a supporter of the project, but he got some real valid concerns on the ground.

CH: Did you think it was fair that your college record and student loan status came up during the election?
YC: I think it was sort of a distraction from real campaign issues and I think that people try to use whatever they can to damage one another’s credibility notwithstanding their lifelong record and everything else. And I would hope that in the future there wouldn’t be that level of what I consider attempt at character assassination. I thought that that was used, and I know it was used...

A lot of what happens in primaries here I think is totally unacceptable, especially when we all have to work together. To get to a point where—and it’s hard, cause a democracy’s a democracy, people are going to conduct themselves the way they see fit. You can’t have a holier than thou attitude about it, but there should be a certain level of decorum that we have during our primary elections that indicates to the electorate that we’re not trying to dig each other’s eyes out at the end of the day. And that that’s not the bad guy and that’s not the good guy—or gal, in my case—but, ‘Here’s where we depart on the issues and this is what makes me a better candidate.’

CH: So did you object to these background issues being raised at all, or did you think it was fair to bring them up, but should have been done in a less nasty way?
YC: I think it was a character hit, which everyone knew my character in the race. And so there was no practical application of it for me in the race. Again, everyone sort of had to search themselves to determine how relevant it was for a race, versus it’s relevance for me. That’s the fine line we walk. I recognize that my life becomes an open book as part of this process and perhaps there were some things that I could have done before it even got to that point. I know when I’m conscious of—you know, certain things in your life that you want to make sure there’s no question about. But for me, I thought that I was in a position where my contributions and everything else were what the electorate would be focused on and not that.

CH: Do you think the U.S. should initiate talks with Iran to help stabilize the situation in Iraq?
YC: I would want to get a little bit more information as to why. I hear the president talk about why he’s opposed to our conversations with Iran and with Syria, and some of it has to do with getting them to back down on nuclear proliferation and, I guess from our perspective, what has been a fostering of terrorist sentiment.

At the same time, that’s what diplomatic talks are all about—it’s working through those issues. And to say that you’re not going to talk with individuals until they do something, it’s sort of patronizing. Because often times that just has people dig in their heels and say, ‘You know what? I’m going to do whatever anyway.’ And it goes both ways. The whole idea is to diffuse the situation. And to diffuse it means you got to have some conversations. It just doesn’t diffuse itself. For us to believe that we’re going to somehow work these guys into acquiescence, I think time has already demonstrated that they’re not there. As a matter of fact, things are getting worse. I think the Iraq Study Group has come up with some very rational recommendations. It was a bipartisan effort of some of the most brilliant minds that we’ve had in the nation. And [the president] asked for opinions! It was like, ‘Anyone know what we should do next? Let’s get this group together.’ After the election it was like, ‘Anybody got any good ideas?’ You don’t ask for good ideas and then say, ‘Oh well.’

CH: Is Al Sharpton a good leader for the city and for the African American community in the city?
YC: Is Al Sharpton a good leader? I think he is. I think he is a good leader among many leaders. He brings a certain history that has developed his leadership into something that gives a significant part of our city comfort that someone sees what’s going on and someone’s willing to speak out about it. And I think that that’s important.

CH: Does he go too far?
YC: He does his thing. That’s him, that’s his character. He’s been that way probably since he was a kid. His mom can tell you if he goes too far. I can’t tell you if he goes too far. I think that sometimes we go too far in our expectations or our characterizations of leadership. When we anoint individual leaders and we don’t acknowledge the breadth and depth of leadership that exists out there, then we’re looking at extremes. But then there’s a whole spectrum that goes into shaping, ultimately, what happens in terms of our civil society and how it’s developed and it evolves. And he’s evolved over time. It’s not like it’s a static—is this the Al Sharpton of the 1980s or the one of 2001? He’s evolved.

CH: He’s lost weight.
YC: He’s lost weight.

CH: Hairstyles have changed.
YC: It has. It used to be more of an afro-yish straightening. Now it’s more like a laid down, kind of George Washington thing.