And the 36th is the ONLY LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT without a male representative.

Helen Sommers isn't a guy?

I wouldn't be so sure about Mary Lou Dickerson either...

Another question: Which of Seattle underwhelming legislative delegations is the worst?

Had the Stranger's voting readership of (fill in imaginary number) only heeded its endorsement of Pure, the outcome would surely have resulted in feminine representation for the 43rd. Or - take an even greater leap of faith - had Dodson and Pure combined forces, their total vote would now exceed Pedersen's. But that premise is predicated on two imaginaries: one of them would have had to withdraw from the race and then persuaded her adherents to vote for the other. Or an even wilder supposition: if all women in the 43rd who could vote did vote for either Dodson or Pure, then this thread would be moot.

Obviously Erica it is because the good and right thinking citizens of the 43rd realize that women are completely and absolutely incapable of leadership. Either that or there happened to be some decent male candidates running for positions.

Give the victimization a rest. 90% of the Pure-bashing that I read on the Slog centered around the premise that she ran a bad campaign or was a bad candidate - NOT that she was a woman. Hopefully someone will give you and Nicastro a dictionary so that you can both look up the real definition of misogyny.

It's people like you - who claim race, gender or orientation bias any time that things don't go their way - that set back efforts to create a world in which these differences are not the central issue in any decision.

For some strange reason, I thought genital configuration was no longer much of an issue in Seattle - but - all of a sudden ...... Erica it is the same city that had 6 or 7 women on the city council at one time, a few years back.

Christine would not be the Gov. has it not been for Seatttle.

Won't float.

And when gay men call each other Mary, ask Dan, doesnt that count? Or is Jamie too hyper macho?

what the holy fuck? ECB, your constant promoting of Pure is garbage. You are quickly losing credility as a journalist.

Some things people need to consider.

1. Pure did do better than Dodson, in the face of some of the establishment trying to put her down, which is all Erica's original Slog post pointed out. But without the Stranger endorsement and subsequent puff piece this would not have been the case. This race was not about gender, it was about quality, experience and effectiveness. Pure lost because she didn't measure up in those areas. Unfortunately ECB has made it about her personal relationship and now is trying to worm out of her bad call by accusing people of sexism.

2. Erica Barnett and Josh Feit are close personal friends with Pure. Their support of her brings into question the Stranger's ethics (or maybe not, depending where you thought they were to start with). The argument that Pure got the Stranger's endorsement the same way every other candidate gets it is just wrong. She had an inside track, which is fine, but the endless promotion needs to stop somewhere. No one ranked on this relationship before the 'The Real Winner ' Slog post by Erica, which just seemed to go to far. Erica went to the well one too many times, and has now created a backlash. Pure doesn't really deserve it, but The Stranger does.

3. Pure is not young, she lacks experience. Compare what Pure has done at 33 to what any of the other candidates had done at 33. Does this mean she is a bad candidate? No, just that she would need to deliver fresh exciting ideas and strong, specific policy objectives to be a good one, which she didn't do. That's not sexism, it's fact. Kelley suffered the same fate.

4. Pure's attempt to appeal to the 'cool kids' didn't fly. She got a little traction only after the Stranger tirelessly hyped their close friend. Both Pure and Pedersen are 'shiny happy people'. A little on the annoying side to the people Pure was trying to appeal to. As much as Street and Kelley were boring, Jamie and Stephanie were bouncy and annoying. The difference being that Jamie has a law degree, works at one of the top law firms in the country, helped craft progressive legislation at the state level that passed, and didn't try to appeal to the cynical 'cool kids'. Sherman came out the best on the personality ratings in my book.

It looks like Pedersen will win this race. All the candidates were good, and all will stay involved in politics. Pure no doubt has a future in politics and she did well by herself to get into this race to start building a base of supporters.

Does anything else really need to be said? We're beating a dead horse. Salute to Jamie, let's all work together to help him do a good job.

NYKOF: Please read my post before you accuse me of "claiming gender bias any time things don't go my way." In the future, I will not hesitate to delete ignorant comments like yours.

Wow! To threaten to delete comments simply because you disagree with them. What a healthy way to run a forum.

I guess it was my bad to not realize that in your world loaded words like SEXIST used in the title only have meaning and value when they benefit your point of view. How very ignorant of me.

Ever notice how Stranger writers like to dish it out but don't like it in return?

Stephanie, is it time to pick some better friends?

I'm curious:

What are the voting records of those reps in the 43rd district when it comes to issues which strongly affect the lives of women? Do any of the reps have a record of votes against women, or sexist attitudes, or avoiding legislation that helps the lives of women?

If not, then aren't these reps doing a good job in helping women, and helping all the people in their district?

If a candidate like Linda Smith or Ellen Craswell were running in this district, should she deserve a seat because she's a woman?

Are all the returns for the district in? I wanted to see if Street and this absentee edge he was supposed to have had materialized.

Frank:

No one is questioning what other personal friends the Stranger may have among the candidates - only ECB and Josh. Nor is anyone ragging on the other "puff piece" that ran much earlier on JAMIE. Finally, Pure has WAY more legislative experience than any other candidate besides Jim. Being a corporate lawyer is not the same as crafting legislation. Do a little more research next time.

The Stranger got ranked on hard for the Pedersen puff piece as I remember. And no one is questioning if the other candidates are friends with political writers and editors at The Stranger because those friendships did not play a part in an endorsement in this race. I specifically said Jamie helped craft legislation at the State level, which he did. Stephanie has not. If Pure has so much legislative experience then she should have talked it up, pointing to specific legislation she worked on that passed. Pederesen did this and it was effective.

"NYKOF: Please read my post before you accuse me of "claiming gender bias any time things don't go my way." In the future, I will not hesitate to delete ignorant comments like yours."

ECB! Have you lost all your political smarts! Never delete posts like that... they prove the point for you!

Even if you were trying to 'satirize' them... you couldn't equal the inate indignation that flows from these guys naturally. Let em rip!

Besides, all the young female candidates in the poli-pipeline can more than take it. They grew up on it for Christ's sake. They're not going to give up because a bunch of guys bitch at them!

Wow. I have to say that reading the comments on Stephanie over the last few days has been, well, revealing - like much of this campaign. I worked closely on the campaign and think I have been called everything from her campaign manager, to her consultant to her spokesperson. But more importantly, Stephanie is a friend. She's a good person and sincerely cares about giving access to those who don't have a voice in government. Each of the candidates does, methinks, or they wouldn't have a "Democrat" next to their name. Let's try to keep that in mind when we evaluate the candidates and their campaigns, shan't we?

I think I speak for Stephanie (why stop now?) when I say, we congratulate Jamie (and the other candidates) on a great campaign (I'll be sending in my make-up contribution shortly, Jamie). And no matter how much back and forth goes on in the comments thread, we feel really good about our showing. We were outspent 3-to-1 (and could be 4-to-1 when the final reports come in), Stephanie wasn't able to campaign full time until August and most personal endorsements amongst the political movers and shakers were decided well before Stephanie jumped in the race. These aren't excuses - but forgive us if we won't subscribe to the 'lousy campaign' mentality. We are really proud of her showing despite months of people predicting a humiliating loss (thanks for the 'poll' Eli and Meinert!). Other than a few cranks on here, I think most folks raised their eyebrows at her showing.

A final note - we are grateful to the Stranger for their endorsement. Did it help? Who knows. I think it did. I hope it did. But so did the Times endorsement for Sherman, so did the PI's endorsement for Jim Street, Labor's backing of Dodson and Ed's endorsement of Jamie. It all helps - that's why we seek endorsements.

I also think its hi-larious that folks are criticizing us for targeting young voters as a worthless venture. If we don't ever reach out to them, other than some cursory mention during major presidential elections, how do we ever get them engaged? Or is the advice just write them off completely?

"Erica Barnett and Josh Feit are close personal friends with Pure."

Really? Erica, Josh - any comment here?

I was grasping for something to help navigate the large field of good candidates, and the Stranger endorsement piece definitely influenced my vote for Pure. Man, do I feel stupid.

On the balance, I love The Stranger, but the editorial content coming out of News Department is a serious weak link. That Josh and Erica regularly delete negative comments on Slog only illustrate this point.

Dan, please hire some smart people to run news!

I'm confused. Why would the fact that Josh and Erica know Stephanie and like her make their endorsements unethical?

Both Jean Godden and Jim Compton were media professionals and had many close personal friends on the newpapers that went on to endorse them. No one thought that was wrong. Like minded people do tend to travel in packs.

So why is The Stranger not allowed to endorse a friend? There's already a buzz that ex-Seattle Weekly writer George Howland is thinking of running for the council. Does that mean no one in the alt press can endorse him?

The issue isn't that they endorsed a friend, it's that they failed to mention she was a friend in their endorsement or the other puff pieces they wrote about her.

Not a good way to build credibility or trust among readers. Cheesy and unprofessional.

Oh yea, and to reply to the Erica's inane post, I'll just note: Washington is now the *only* state in the country without a single male U.S. Senator. Discuss.

Not true. See for example California or Maine.

How about we split the difference and have Pedersen represent the 43rd in drag?

"Not true. See for example California or Maine."

Good god, the man-haters are even more widespread than I thought!

Congratulations ECB. You've accomplished something that most thought was impossible. It was hard to imagine that anyone could possibly eclipse Philip Dawdy in terms of amateurish journalism and petulant blogging. All hail the new champion.

So what IF (note: IF) Erica IS friends with Ms. Pure? Note: SHE didn't write any articles on her until AFTER the election results were pretty much in the bag.

And for you continued "Stranger haters" (why the hell are you on here if you hate the Stranger so much anyway?), you will notice they write fluff pieces on practically everyone they endorse. Big deal - they want their endorsement to mean something so they do a profile piece following the endorsment.

And I wouldn't call the piece all that spectacular for Ms. Pure - they basically called her the long shot the whole time. Wow, what a politcal blow job.

Oh, and finally, Sarah Mirk wrote the story, not Erica - and Sarah isn't even on the Endorsments Board. But maybe Erica held her at gunpoint and forced her to write the story and also forced the other Endorsment board members to vote for Stephanie. Yes, that must be it. God forbid Ms. Pure might have EARNED the endorsement because she might APPEAL to their readership. Oh heavans no.

Jamie pulled ahead by another 20 votes - tooth fairly doen not like the loosers - Jamie wins.

To the person who said they were very involved in Pure's piecemeal campaign - next time use focus groups for feedback - not you half wit friends.

Who can only tell you how neat you are - at risk of telling you the truth and losing your frindship.

Doris, now I understand why Judy was a one term pony - take tainted money, dilute your politics, and them blame the male old fashioned sexist thing --- dear God, get a clue. This town is the least sexist place I have ever been.

Jake, do you get up on the wrong side of the bed every day? Do you talk to people like this in real life? I feel like I've seen you on a street corner screaming at cars or something recently.

Don't pay any attention to them Jake. The natives get grumpy when you ask them to think or expect them to grow(Mr. X, where are you...) They figure that they have theirs and all you're going to do is ruin it if you don't shut up.

I would dial it back a bit though on the pro-Jamie rhetoric as no one likes a sore winner.

"God forbid Ms. Pure might have EARNED the endorsement because she might APPEAL to their readership."

The point is that it's impossible to say whether she earned The Stranger endorsement when the News Editor and Senior News Writer are friends with her and neglected to mention that in their endorsement. Come on, who else are they going to vote for?

Stephanie Pure may be the second coming of Christ, but I won't be taking The Stranger Election Board's word for it.

Come to think of it, The Stranger trashed Pederson by incorrectly asserting he was a "lobbyist" for Preston, Gates, & Ellis. Interesting.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Stranger. The columns are one of a kind, and the reporting is often great (the whole Microsoft, Ken Hutchinson deal comes to mind). But Josh and Erica have always been weak, and now they've sunk to pathetic.

"This town is the least sexist place I have ever been."

Yeah, but it got a lot more sexist once you and Frank showed up.

"Jamie pulled ahead by another 20 votes - tooth fairly doen not like the loosers - Jamie wins.

To the person who said they were very involved in Pure's piecemeal campaign - next time use focus groups for feedback - not you half wit friends.

Who can only tell you how neat you are - at risk of telling you the truth and losing your frindship."

Creative use of irony, Jake. My half-wit friends and I savored every intentional mis-spelling and planned incomplete sentence. Way to drive your point home!

Focus Groups! Of course! Why didn't we think of that? With all of our stockpiles of cash laying around, we definitely should have spent it on focus groups. We were seeking the Di Vinci code for this campaign and it was staring us right in the face the whole time. How half-witted of us.

There's only two spots IIRC. Flip a coin twice: sometimes it'll come up heads both times.

I bet in the next rep election, that'll change. Don't get too crazy.

Also, while Erica and Josh being friends with Pure doesn't make the Stranger's endorsement unethical, the relationship is certainly something to consider. There is a definite bias that the educated reader must recognize.

It's not damning, but it's certainly not a factor to be ignored.