Oh, Eli, remember a few years back when you were at the top of your game, The Stranger's hot new political reporter, constantly ahead of the curve, smartly cynical of that stale old conventional wisdom? You know, back before too many Friday mornings sitting next to Joni Balter in the KUOW studio apparently started to rub off?

Back then you seemed to get Darcy Burner and what she represented, long before the rest of the local media took her 2006 congressional campaign seriously. The rest of the press corps ignored Burner's insurgent, netroots-driven campaign, blindly buying into the Republican mantra that she could never be financially viable, but not you, Eli. No, you followed her around, providing the first non-blog coverage of what ultimately turned out to be one of the most hotly contested congressional races in the nation. Good on you.

But while I empathize with your own "personal fatigue" (I admittedly suffered from a little Burner burnout myself after her second heartbreaking loss), I just can't help but take issue with your tired litany of electoral naysaying:

"1. She still hasn't done anything." Really, Eli? That old trope? Small town Nebraska to Harvard to Microsoft to national progressive leader is nothing? And yes, that's what Burner is: A national progressive leader. You say you know Burner's spent the past couple years as the executive director of ProgressiveCongress.org, yet you don't bother to explain what that job actually entailed: Working closely with the Congressional Progressive Caucus—actual members of Congress—on a range of important issues including health care reform and the economy. Burner is well known in the halls of Congress. Well liked and well respected. And if elected, she would enter the House as a progressive leader. Can't say that about the rest of the WA-01 field, can you?

Speaking of which, yeah, three of her opponents—Laura Ruderman, Roger Goodman, and Marko Lias—all have legislative experience. Good for them. Successful congressional candidates tend to have held prior elective office. But it's hardly a prerequisite. Progressive icon Paul Wellstone never held public office before winning his US Senate seat, and neither did Al Franken. Republicans Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Paul Ryan were all political neophytes before running for Congress, as were Washington Democrats Brian Baird and uber-appropriater Norm Dicks.

And honestly, you want to compare Burner's experience unfavorably to that of political unknowns Andrew Hughes and Darshan Rauniyar because the former was an intern to some legislative committee while the latter was elected a PCO? Burner recruits PCOs. She's in a whole 'nother league.

"2. The Harvard problem still exists." Yeah, in the minds of Republican consultants and their surrogates at the Seattle Times. And if they didn't have that made up hit piece to throw at her, they'd make up something else. That's how politics works. If the risk of your opponents making up lies about you is reason enough not to run for office, then nobody would ever run for anything. (And yes, Burner has a degree in computer science and economics from Harvard University, and if the folks at the Seattle Times are too stupid to figure out what that means, that's their problem.)

"3. The entitlement problem still exists." What "entitlement problem," Eli? You mean that Harvard thing again? Burner's no child of privilege. She fucking worked her way to and through Harvard. Just like she worked her way through two impressive congressional runs against a Republican incumbent in a district that has never elected a Democrat. Or is it the she's-never-run-for-lower-office thing? Really? Because this "dues paying" vs. "line-jumping" argument of yours sounds awfully status quoist. Very establishment like. Very Seattle Times. Again, you might not want to sit so close to Joni. I think it's catching.

Yeah, Burner is a bit of a narcissist, but then, that character flaw pretty much is a prerequisite for public office. I mean, in politics (as in journalism), anybody who thinks they can actually make a difference, has to be at least a little bit full of themselves. In software parlance, it's not a bug, it's a feature. But entitled? No. Again, folks can accuse her of feeling entitled, just like they can accuse her of not earning the degree she's earned, but anybody who's watched how hard she works knows that's just not true.

"4. What she's doing now is opportunism." Eli, you write that all of Burner's opponents are opportunists, but that "losing twice in a row in one Congressional district and then ... running in a neighboring Congressional district—that marks a different order of magnitude on the opportunism scale." Oy.

Let's start with the second point first: She's running in a neighboring district (after sitting out the last election, by the way) because the district has moved! Or rather, the district is moving; none of the declared candidates know for sure where the district boundaries will be. But there's nothing particularly opportunistic about running in the district where you live.

As to your first point, if you're gonna dismiss as opportunistic every candidate who ran again after losing two elections in a row, you're gonna have to say the same about a lot of other well known politicians. Like, you know, Abraham Fucking Lincoln, who lost two consecutive US Senate runs (with a failed VP nomination bid in between) before finally being elected president in 1860. That's right: Those Lincoln-Douglass debates... he lost 'em. And yet we built that shameless opportunist a motherfucking monument. Go figure.

"5. The shrill blogger problem still exists." WE BLOGGERS ARE NOT SHRILL!!!! WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT!!!!!!!!!!! Besides, even if some of us are shrill, most voters have no fucking idea that we even exist, so it's hard to view Netroots support as some sort of political liability.

What the progressive blogosphere can do for Burner is raise a shitload of money, virtually overnight. Not from PACs or Kochs or unions or corporations, but from thousands of ordinary people nationwide. That's not a liability. That's a strength. And one Burner's likely to bludgeon her primary opponents with.

In fact, Eli, for all her alleged weaknesses, I'd say that her entrance into the race makes Burner the instant frontrunner. Of all the candidates, only Burner has the proven ability to raise the millions of dollars necessary to make a successful run, and only Burner starts with substantial name ID outside of her own legislative district. And while yeah, she's already lost twice, this time she's running for an open seat in what will almost certainly be a comfortably blue district. Compared to facing off against Reichert in '06 and '08, Ruderman, Goodman and Lias look like a cakewalk.

But what really excites me about Burner's candidacy is not her prospect for victory, but the prospect of what she'll do with the office. She'll be a powerful voice for change both within the House and within her own party. As Burner would phrase it, she'll be a "disruptive" force in the same way that new and better technologies are disruptive to existing markets. And what better district for such a disruptive candidate to come than from Washington's high-tech 1st Congressional District?