i feel that all of these candidates would vote the same way on gay issues, which politically takes more guts if they're straight. its sad, but true. we need strong legislators who stand up for gay rights, sure, but they don't HAVE to be gay to do it. we should be looking at how the candidates are qualified across the board. this isn't a "gay seat", its a "gay-rights-supporting" seat and i think all of the candidates qualify.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Oh, and...

If Momma was married we'd live in a house
As private as private can be...

"Some people" is a clear reference to Bill Dubay, who made the comment. I am not aware that he is Pedersen's spokesperson. In fact, the article quotes Pedersen on this, reading: "He said he's aware some people believe a member of the gay and lesbian community should hold the House seat. Pedersen said he doesn't, however, "have any sense of entitlement that a gay person should have that seat."

The real story here is that the Times ran a lame article, taking a statement by one person, Bill Dubay, who doesn't even live in the 43rd, and making it sound like there's a group of gays determined to keep straights from winning in the 43rd. And even that isn't much of an interesting story to comment on.

Your post is petty and your anti-Pedersen affliction makes you sound like a bitter old queen. Why don't you take your own advice and shut the fuck up.

The idea that women need a woman to represent them is as stupid as gays thinking someone has to be gay in the government to represent gay issues. Thankfully our government doesn't work that way.

From plumbers to restauranters to politicos, I've been duped into the whole community support thing, and what have I gotten: Leaky pipes, Hepatitis scares and do-nothings who show up in the bars before elections to "meet the community"

That's not to say I won't patronize a gay-owned business or vote for an openly gay politician, but they'd better have a track record and know what they are doing. Pimping your sexuality to pander to your fellow homos doesn't cut it with me.

The 43rd district has a lot of needs that have nothing to do with whom the citizenry sleeps with. Ed Murray and Cal Anderson knew that, and that's why they were effective. There's nothing to say that a straight politician couldn't me just as effective in representing the gay voters.

Glad to see Portland survived the Xtian prophecy of destruction on Gay Pride day.

That's almost more disturbing to me than the idea that a particular seat belongs to a gay candidate.

It doesn't help to pull things out of the paper to create a story about Pedersen that's not there.

In 1977, Dick managed Charles Royer’s first campaign for Mayor, and after winning the election he became one of the two Deputy Mayors, working primarily with health and human service agencies, rights agencies, and internal City administration. He chaired the City’s Affirmative Action Task Force.

and

In President Bill Clinton’s final term, he appointed Dick the Regional Director of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, for the four Northwest states. Taking an aggressive attitude to the job, Dick led the Region in Census outreach to previously undercounted minority groups, resulting in the greatest improvement in their count of any region in the country. He also used the many resources and contacts of DHHS to promote enrollment of working poor families in the State Childrens’ Health Insurance Program. Another of his initiatives was with the network of community and migrant health clinics, many of which he visited to personally assess their needs and explore possible sources of assistance. None of this appealed to George Bush, who terminated Dick and the other Clinton Regional Directors in 2001.

Talk about "ability to get things done". Oh, and Dick Kelley is also the only one of the six Democratic candidates who has actually worked with the Legislature in Olympia.

"'When a district with a powerful gay bloc sends a pro-gay heterosexual to the Legislature, that makes a statement to the other heterosexual legislators about the possibility of being a pro-gay straight legislator,' said Savage, a vocal critic of Pedersen"

The Times characterized Savage well. I'm not sure why Savage has an axe to grind against Pedersen, but his consistant attacks seem to be of an ad hominem nature.

The fact of the matter is that some people will vote for Pedersen because he is a gay person with a demonstrated track record of fighting for LGBT equality - and much moreso than any of the other democratic candidates. With an impending Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage, a case that Pedersen argued, it is certainly legitimate to think that he would be more willing and more adept at figthing against the backlash that may very well follow such a decision in the legislature. Pro-gay heterosexuals, as Savage points out, are important for equality, but there are quite a few self-professed heterosexual supporters in the legislature.

Voters for Pedersen may also support him for his knowledge of transportation issues and work on the Monorail, his efforts to help preserve health care access with Pac-Med, or his commitment to preserving and increasing quality k-12 public education. That a reporter quotes one supporter for their particular motives does not represent the motivations for all of Pedersen's supporters, or the intentions of his campaign.

Not that any one person deserves to be the appointed spokesperson for any group, but Bill Dubay has paid his dues where these issues are concerned over the years (certainly more than Dan has, unless you consider giving out bad sex advice in a syndicated column a qualification).

Since the white male has enough representation I would like to see a single, female, labor friendly, IT worker who rents and is involved in the community. Hey wait that would be me!

Pedersen has knowledge of transportation issues, and as he is not running against Rep. Murray, I don't see how Murray's expertise is relevant to Pedersen's qualifications. As to the knowledge of the other gay legislators, one finds it hard to believe that the addition of another dedicated advocate, who has worked for many years fighting for LGBT equality with Lambda Legal and locally, would detract from their effectiveness.

Flying monkey or not, Pedersen has my support. Perhaps the Savage following critics could add some substance to their critiques and stop basing them on personal attacks and name calling.

Identity politics help no one.

Attack politics work because they draw a distinction between candidates in a way that anyone can see. Problem is, I don't see you drawing any distinction here -- you're just slamming one candidate, saying he has exactly what everyone else has (support of gay rights) and then trying to base his campaign on it. Fair enough observation -- but what SHOULD this campaign be about? Who SHOULD we be voting for, and WHY? Why is Pedersen BAD for the district, and why is anyone else BETTER?

Is it the seeming number two man, Kelley? Somebody here remarks he has 'legislative experience'. He's also the former leader of the district dems, and frankly, anyone who has a pre-built connection to that group of knee-jerk, backbiting CAVERs (Citizens Against Virtually EVerything, the Seattle NIMBY) has a mark against them for being an effective future legislator.

No one ever raised a statue to a critic -- you can tear Pederssn down, who will you put up?