"For the record, Darcy left Microsoft to make sure that people who work hard and play by the rules get the opporunities they deserve."

Sounds like she was fired.

"Unlike many of our elected leaders, she has a healthy intellectual curiousity. She attended a year of law school to better understand the law."

Sounds like she couldn't handle the pressure.

Hint: If you want to help her--don't do it with this kind of sloganeering. This isn't a student body election.

Nothing like a little far-fetched presumptions huh Napolean?

Not presuming--just pointing out that the explanations sound like cheesy Ass-Covering.

Let's wait until Dick Cheney gets into town and Reichert has to stand next to him with a big shit-eating grin on his face. Then we'll see who looks bad to the electorate around here.

Napoleon: Fired? Oh really? That's what it sounds like to you? That's your IMPRESSION?

Another thing I don't get: how Right-Wing Dim Bulbs always start Capitalizing their Nouns when they get excited.

I agree with Napoleon-- the campaign's response is ridiculous. Stefan's issue is that Darcy says she left Microsoft to focus on her Congressional race, but her old blog says she left to go to law school. These things are not inconsistent-- why can't her campaign manager just point out that a bit of law school is something she legitimately thought might help her political aspirations?

Sorry FNARF, I'm a Left-Wing Dim Bulb Capitalist against flimsy rationalization.

I don't believe people leave their jobs "to make sure that people who work hard and play by the rules get the opporunities they deserve" or prepare for, apply for, and attend law school simply to satisfy "intellectual curiosity."

It sounds like she left Microsoft to go to law school, either failed at it or else didn't like it, and is now looking for something else to fill the void.

Then again, I could be wrong. So there.

Speculation, it's what people with flimsy arguments rely on. I bet Darcy learned all about that in her year of law school.

Even if you are right where is the muck?
People change careers all the time. People drop out of school all the time. Where's the smoking gun that would lend some credibility to your and Stefan's paper thin argument.

Sounds like sour grapes, which makes for a very poor whine in my book.

So tell me: why then are you only interested in attacking Democratic candidates? Why the free pass for Republicans? This is so characteristic of Seattle lefties; the ONLY thing they're interested in is the shortcomings of Democrats. You're working for the Republicans. If you're a leftie, why do you only work on behalf of Republicans? Why don't you take a look at Dave Reichert and get back to us on what a "strong candidate" he is? Is it because lefties all have cop fetishes? What is it?

I make no argument in this thread other than that in my humble opinion, bland platitudes thrown out by a campaign manager are not terribly satisfying explanations, and yes, might lead to speculation as to what actually motivated her.

My complaint is about style, not necessarily substance, so shelve the ad hominem attack for someone with real criticism of the candidate.

A minute ago you were saying "she was fired". The question remains, why does it "lead to speculation" only when it's a Dem?
Seattle lefties are only interested in one thing: assessing the level of leftie purity in their candidates. They don't give a shit if the Republican gets elected as a result; in fact, they welcome it. I think that's disturbing and wrong.

Real Democrats want Democrats to win elections.

What do you want, Napoleon?

Being dishonest about your past or life decisions is not a 'silly issue'. I'm with Napoleon XIII... instead of owning up to the error, they're now pulling a classic CYA.

Man, just when I'm about to give her a chance, she has to show us that she's no less dishonest and willing to cover lies up than your average politician.

You guys are already digging her political grave, and she hasn't even gotten started.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we are all arguing over a candidate that none of us living in Seattle will even get to vote for. No?

Ok, back to the argument.

Nice attempt at Swift Boating someone over nothing.

Pathetic assholes.

"A minute ago you were saying "she was fired"

Where did I say she was fired? If you look at my first post, I say:

"Sounds like she was fired." As in--that half-assed rationalization for why she left Microsoft makes it sound like she was fired.

Tired political cliches are tired political cliches, regardless of party affiliation. I only bring it up in the context of this one because I read the statement and found it particularly sophomoric.

For the record: Yes, I prefer Democrats to win. I also prefer Democrats to vet and field candidates who are competent and have a chance of winning.

Whether this one is or not, I have yet to be convinced.

Napolean, I am then to assume you are form Mrs. Burner's district and will be voting for her. No?

So, how's Dave Reichert and the Republican Congress treatin' ya, Gomez?

How many posts have you made here about how inadequate Darcy Burner is? How many have you made about the alternative? There is an alternative: his name is Dave Reichert, and he stands shoulder to shoulder with George Bush and Dick Cheney.

Do you dig that?

You're not just voting for a person. Individuals don't accomplish anything in Congress on their own. Political parties accomplish things, but only if they can get elected. When you tear down the Democrat candidate, you're tearing down the Democrat agenda, and you're SUPPORTING THE REPUBLICAN ONE.

Maybe that's not the way you wish it would be, but Ralph Nader is an asshole and these are the only two choices you got.

I am not from Ms. Burner's district and will not be voting for her or against, which is why I have no comment on her substantive merits.

However, I will *not* be hiring her campaign manager to produce press releases for me. A bad press release is worse than none at all.

It's been fun watching you guys all a-flutter, but we've been talking past one another this entire thread. Time to move on. Maybe I'll read Scharansky's column and find out what you're on about.

Wow, not only will you not be voting for her (wrong district after all) but you further hurt her cause by vowing to never hire her P.R. firm?

Man, you are cruel. You are straight up gangsta.

Word.

but her old blog says she left to go to law school.

If you had bothered reading it yourself, you would know that it explicitly says she's going to law school in preparation for a career in politics.

Couldn't handle the pressure? According to the post up on HorsesAss now, she got straight As.

It's the Rs that are cracking under pressure here.

If that's true that is too damn funny, There was a commenter on HorsesAss begging her to release her transcripts cause he was sure she flunked out. that guy is eating one big 'ol shit sandwich right now, i love it!

Hey--if she got straight A's in her first year of law school and that didn't make into her press releases, it's all the more reason to tar and feather her campaign manager. ;)

"Vote for our candidate, because the other candidate is evil."

Hey, it worked for John Kerry and Al Gore.... oh wait, no it didn't.

Sorry, not being Dave Reichert doesn't absolve Darcy Burner from needing to display some character and not be dishonest with her citizenry.

And yes, Fnarf, voters ARE voting for a person, and yes, character IS an issue with most voters. If that's not the case, you might as well run an automated machine up there. "Vote Donkeytron 5000 (D-Redmond) for Congress! Never eats, never sleeps, never votes Republican!"

I am moving to the eastside just to vote for Donkeytron 5000!

I hear the DonkeyTron5000 is made by Diebold. Elect it, and it'll support the Iraq war and oppose the Alito filibuster. Just wait and see!

Funny you should use the word "machine". Machine politics gets things done. The politics of personality doesn't. A congress full of solo artists who only care about looking good for the cameras is a disaster. That's why the Republicans are tearing the Dems to pieces, not just at the polls but in the bills; they're organized, and they're all pulling on the rope in the same direction.

So what you're saying is--Ms. Burner should promise to be a Democratic machine politician in a traditionally Republican-leaning district?

You're not gonna be my PR person, either.

No, what I'm saying is, when the Democrats had a machine they got stuff passed, like the Great Society. Now, they suffer in silence, and when the Republicans kick their asses they softly beg for more.

If Burner told her Kerry-voting district "I'll work with the Democratic caucus to achieve workable Democratic goals, and I won't vote with Bush 97% of the time" she might win.

"I'll work with the Democratic caucus to achieve workable Democratic goals, and I won't vote with Bush 97% of the time." Definitely a good starting point. The follow up question will be, "Okay, but how? And why?" And if she can't or won't answer those questions, while Reichert states his case with some degree of logic and conviction, that's not gonna swing the voters in the 8th District.

I mean, seriously, this is the same shit people were saying in '00 and '04. It didn't work, it hasn't worked, so what makes you think it will work now? Bush's blunders? He's been blundering since before the war, since before he was even elected. The Republicans have bent over backwards to fuck the country since they regained Congress. And that hasn't swayed the voters. You're beating a dead horse and not changing any minds.

First candidate Darcy Burner makes some inconsistent statements about how she ended up running in the first place. Then when she is asked direct questions to clear it up, her campaign manager evades the questions tries to change the subject.

How about being honest and answering a few simple questions? If Darcy cannot handle simple questions like this, how is she ever going to survive the campaign when it really heats up?

The way to effectively deal with this "kerfuffle", although I think this is a more serious issue about integrity and honesty, is to respond to the questions directly. Otherwise, campaign manager Zach is going to discover very soon that he is way overmatched by Stefan Sharkansky.

Say what you want about her detractors, but the fact is that Darcy Burner, in letting her handlers do the talking for her, is giving them the chance to dig her into a hole. She needs to start taking initiative in her campaign, respond DIRECTLY (meaning no press releases; it's got to bet from her and her alone) to these allegations in light of her lapse, or she may as well just drop out of the race and let the Democratic party fund a candidate who WILL be straightforward and will stand up for themselves, instead of hiding behind others while they respond for them.

Uh, WHAT "questions"? There are no questions. The only people asking these supposed questions are members of the Kook Brigade. Why are you marching with them?