Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Swift Kids for Truth | Hey, what time does that game ... »

Monday, November 12, 2007

“She Does Owe Us a Candid Explanation.”

posted by on November 12 at 18:05 PM

Last Friday, I had a quick interview with Gov. Christine Gregoire in the lobby of Town Hall after her testimony at the FCC hearing.

One of the questions I asked her was why she didn’t endorse the Democratic candidate for King County Prosecutor, Bill Sherman. (Sherman lost last Tuesday to the GOP candidate, Dan Satterberg.)

Here’s my rant about her non-endorse. And here’s the interview, where she told me Sherman never asked her for her endorsement. I told her the Sherman campaign said otherwise. But she maintained she’d never been asked directly.

I talked to Bill Sherman today, and again, he says he did ask Gregoire for her endorsement in person. He says it was at a League of Education Voters/Gregoire fund raiser over the summer at League President, Lisa Macfarlane’s home. Sherman says Gregoire told him politely that she looked forward to talking about the endorsement. At the same event, Sherman says he talked to Gregoire’s political director Ron Judd about getting the governor’s endorsement.

He and his consultant Christian Sinderman then exchanged a series of e-mails and phone calls with Judd about the endorsment—the “appropriate organizational protocol, she has a lot of demands on her time,” Sherman says. E-mails and calls also went out after Sherman won the Democratic primary and again just a week or two before election day. They were never directly told ‘No,’ Sherman says, but they never got her endorsement.

Sherman says, “This isn’t sour grapes. I’ve contributed to the governor, and I’ll continue to support her. But she’s asking for strong support from King County voters, and she does owe us a candid explanation for that [why she didn’t endorse the Democrat.] What she told you was incorrect.

*Sherman did indeed give Gregoire $100 in 2004.

*Both Sherman and his consultant Sinderman are on vacation right now. Sherman didn’t have access to his e-mail, but says he will send the e-mails to me when he gets back on Wednesday. I couldn’t reach Sinderman.

RSS icon Comments


CYA time for Chris. I wonder what it's like helming a sinking ship.

Is this the same Ron Judd who scribes for the Times?

Posted by laterite | November 12, 2007 7:47 PM

And Josh, I for one think you should keep pushing your central thesis that this election was not so much a success on the GOP's part, but rather a failure of the Democrats to coalesce on the races and issues. No, this isn't 2008, but I'm sure not hopeful for the major races in that election if this is any harbinger.

Posted by laterite | November 12, 2007 7:58 PM

Are you related to Sherman somehow? It's really the only explanation for this obsession.

Posted by beware | November 12, 2007 8:38 PM

Jenny Durkan, the Seattle lawyer, Democratic politico and close political confidante of Gregoire's, endorsed Satterburg. She probably spiked any endorsement of Sherman by Gregoire.

Posted by ratcityreprobate | November 12, 2007 8:45 PM

Wait, you mean politicians lie? And blogging can help spread those lies before they're fact checked?

Posted by News! | November 12, 2007 11:45 PM

The Ron Judd who works for the Gov is a different Judd than the Judd at the Seattle Times.

Posted by chris | November 13, 2007 5:40 AM

@3 - actually, Josh just has a deep-seated desire to get Rossi elected so he can complain about a Rethug for four years.

Sadly, he's off to a decent start....

Posted by Mr. X | November 13, 2007 10:26 AM

Seated politicians always favor the incumbent unless compelled otherwise.

Only party loyalists get bent over this. Since when does Gregoire need King County party loyalists?

Posted by six shooter | November 13, 2007 11:03 AM

The endorsement by incumbents of your own party is something of a professional courtesy; it's more or less the way you can tell a real candidate from some tool who's filing just because he's an egomaniac. It's VERY insulting to ask for an endorsement and have them equivocate, and hem and haw, and then say, "well, maybe we should have a meeting and talk about this." That basically translates to, "you haven't raised enough money for me to take you seriously, and your opponent might not like it if I endorse you, and he has way more money than you. So go away and don't bother me anymore."

Had it happen to me when I was running; most local pols were happy to endorse me, but there was one - one with absolutely nothing to lose, as he's in a very safe seat - who gave me that whole BS song and dance. It's very insulting, and you can be guaranteed I'll never ring another doorbell or raise another dollar for HIM.

Posted by Geni | November 13, 2007 12:09 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).