The 43rd race is something I haven't really seen close up before - a six-way primary between a group of Democrats each of whom would probably be an acceptable Dem candidate from my Southern Oregon PoV... Some of this crew might not be able to mount a successful run in the Redder part of the world I call home, but I'd support most of them without hesitation. But up here, it's a different animal. The race ISN'T between the (R) and the (D) in November. When the General rolls around, the betting pool will be whether the Green will outpoll the Republican and come in second behind the Dem. So this primary is effectively The Race. The six candidates include the legislative aide of a Seattle City Councilman, a former City Councilman turned Judge, an attorney spearheading the gay marriage argument in front of the State Supreme Court, the chair of the local Dem party, an education Labor leader with a background in the classrooom, and a local prosecutor with a background in the Clinton/Babbitt Interior Dept.
The connections to me for this race, as noted in earlier posts - I spent my college years with Bill Sherman, who took nearly a year from school working for Dukakis' race in 1988, a job he echoed for Clinton in '92... then joined Interior (he'd met Bruce Babbitt in an airport during the '88 race, if my memory serves). After law school, Bill came to Seattle, working in private practice and then as a King County prosecutor, and remaining an active Democrat.
So I would be working for him as a classmate and longtime friend, but the "Fair and Balanced" part of me has looked at this race from a neutral perspective.
- Bill's stance on the environment is solid (he's the lone candidate endorsed by the Sierra Club and the WCV). This could be even more important with the looming of I 933 (mentioned in an earlier post).
- Bill is also the only candidate in the race with school age children - with the conditions facing schools in Seattle and in Washington, Bill's investment includes the personal stake of having two sons who will pass through the system. He WILL make sure everything in his power to improve and strengthen it is done.
- Protection of Rights are another area where Bill's credentials are hard to ignore. Working in the prosecutor's office, Bill spent much of his time dealing with domestic violence. His background over the years bodes well for a city and state with large populations of ethnic and sexual minorities, large numbers of non-native English speakers, and large numbers of naturalized citizens in an era where anti-choice legislation, immigration "reform" and amendments to halt gay marriage being the current hot-button issues being used to mobilize the base on the other side.
But what of the others running? Seattle's "Only Newspaper", the Stranger, ran a blog series (about 1/5 of the way down, find the Dodson piece, with links to all the others) with most of them and the candidates did take active part. Made for interesting reading.
I can't find anything bad to say about Stephanie Pure. She's the legislative aide - seems energetic and thoughtful. She's young and tuned in to the younger part of city. Not a group that votes in reliable numbers, but they will grow older and she will have a solid political future when the crowd who cheered her work on overturning the Teen Dance Ordinance start hitting their mid 30s.
Jim Street has a long and honorable history of public service in Seattle. I guess the only knock there is he has a long and honorable history of public service in Seattle. Going back to Reagan's 1st term...
Lynne Woodson is the "education candidate", so as a teacher, I SHOULD feel some compelling interest towards her campaign, but I really can't. Her visually awful signs say "Send a teacher to Olympia", but in reading her bio (not really found on her own site, but through area reporting on the race), I don't find "teacher" in the traditional sense currently, nor any time in the past nearly decade. The sad thing is that her OWN campaign lit makes her look scary. I am reminded of the attack pieces that came out after Alan Bates late in the '04 Senate. But the photos of her looking angry and devouring the microphone are self-produced.
Dick Kelley is a Dean Dem (a good thing in my mind) and is running a donotion-capped campaign. But in this race with these opponents, was this a: wise and b: a truly distinguishing act? Seems like a decent guy, but not someone who I am finding particularly compelling.
Jamie Pedersen has the most money, great visibility, but man, if I don't encounter more people anecdotally annoyed by him. When I first Googled this race, I cam across Dan Savage taking a shot regarding a signature-collecting Pederson volunteer positioning Pederson as the only candidate who would support same-sex marriage equality. Which given the demographics and history of the district would be a good issue, if it wasn't that the other five candidates also support this issue. And then, more recently, the proliferation of Pedersen signs seems to not be (as one would expect) a measure of Pedersen support, but it turns out in at least one case it's a measure of Pedersen supporters putting out a sign in the lawn of someone who was not asked and does not support him. Zealous volunteer staff are good, usually, but as has been demonstrated in some other settings (Dean's effort in Iowa, for example), OVER zealous people are a liability. If I coulda captured the attention of every high-visible, high-trafficked part of Medford by signing every third or fourth lawn without asking, I would have been in great shape :P I doubt the Pederson thing is that pervasive, but c'mon! How do you put a sign in a yard of someone you haven't even asked??
So I go to the forum tomorrow. I see if any of these people are as articulate in person as they are in typed blog comments.
No comments :
Post a Comment