Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, June 13, 2012
Politics / The Ladies But a Lot of Liberals Were...
Posted by Goldy on Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 8:56 AM
So if Dom's gonna point to a single critical post in order to characterize Darcy Burner's Netroots Nation keynote presentation as "hectoring," I get to point to some posts from a couple of other women in the audience who had quite a different take.
At my old haunt HA, the blog's newest, youngest, and only female contributor, Roya*, called Burner's speech "amazing":
So many of the speakers and people that I’ve met this weekend so far have been amazing but the speech that nearly brought me to tears along with many others in the audience was from our very own Darcy Burner.
And over at Blue Oregon, my friend Carla Axtman describes her own emotional response:
During the speech, Burner asked if there were women in the room who would be willing to stand up and talk about making the choice to have an abortion. All over the room, women stood. Myself included. Burner then asked those who were willing to support these women who would speak up about their choice to stand. As far as I could see, the entire rest of the room came to their feet.
For me, it felt like the safe and warm embrace of a loving community—willing to support me and speak out against those who would try and shame me.
... I'm proud of the fact that I recognized I wasn't ready to have a baby at 19 years old. I'm relieved that I made the right decision and now I've got two healthy, well-adjusted and intelligent offspring. I waited to have children until I was ready to be a mother. That's what being pro-woman is all about.
If Burner's Democratic primary opponents want to make an issue of her presentation—bizarrely attempting to brand her as too pro-choice—as a Burner supporter I say have it. Burner's point, that the rightwing's success at shaming women into silence about their own abortions hurts the reproductive rights movement, is a strong one. But, you know, watch the presentation and decide for yourself.
*UPDATE: I've been reminded that Roya is an intern on Burner's campaign. Full disclosure and all that.
1
the election is about jobs and the decline in middle class, if only she'd present a twenty word plan to reverse that and clearly shame blame the parties morally responsible for our declining fortunes, she might win.
hearing tell how she wows netroots bloggers bac k east does nothing to indicate she can message her way to winning the election here. providence is not in her district.
hearing tell how she wows netroots bloggers bac k east does nothing to indicate she can message her way to winning the election here. providence is not in her district.
2
@1: The three speakers were invited to talk about how to fight against the War on Women. That was the topic of the panel. And it was in Providence RI, not WA-01. It wasn't a campaign speech.
3
@2 - That's exactly what I was thinking. I figured Dominic's just peeved b/c Darcy pegged him as "the Lotus of politics."
4
I agree that she was on target. It's exactly when Democrats get all wishy-washy instead of forcefully standing up that the base starts leaving them. And worse, it gives Republicans strength because it looks weak. Eric Holder should start fighting back publicly as well. Accuse the Republicans of creating a gun culture instead of just saying he won't step down.
5
As I wrote in comments to the oooooother post, nobody doubts Burner's ability to make a like-minded audience feel warm and appreciated.
6
I agree, Goldy. The old (and stupid) saw that if you're conservative when you're young you don't have a heart and if you're liberal when you're old you don't have a brain has got to be put to rest. This sort of geeky PowerPoint strategizing is exactly the sort of thing happening in smoke-filled rooms of Republican power - then they get a good-looking mannequin to spout off about freedom and family and god.
Darcy's speech is the brain to Elizabeth Warren's heart. Unfortunately some of the touchstones in her speech are simultaneously too icky for stodgy non-Rightists in the demographic that actually votes (Joel Connelly) and really fire up the Right wing talk machine. Occupy? Abortion? Plaintiffs' Lawyers? Morality other than Christianity? Watch out, here comes the crap-storm.
Darcy's speech is the brain to Elizabeth Warren's heart. Unfortunately some of the touchstones in her speech are simultaneously too icky for stodgy non-Rightists in the demographic that actually votes (Joel Connelly) and really fire up the Right wing talk machine. Occupy? Abortion? Plaintiffs' Lawyers? Morality other than Christianity? Watch out, here comes the crap-storm.
7
I liked her speech, too, and found all the criticism on you earlier thread to be off-target. I was unaware of the panel topic, but it was glaringly obvious that she was NOT making a stump speech. Yet that was basically what every "this is how you lose an election" comment was handling it, and that criticism was coming from people who should have known better.
That said, I wouldn't be sold on Burner as a winning congressional candidate yet. I'm not sure all the usual critics here have it right - they mostly point out how she lost to Reichart when Obama won that district, as though Reichart is some generic Republican instead of a high profile and popular former KC sheriff. Which means that the cards were more highly stacked against Burner than people credit. But, she did lose. And although it could be that I only follow WA politics through SLOG these days, but I can't recall any of her prior stump speeches or ideas she sold to WA-9, so I don't know if she was truly appealing to middle of the road voters or not. But keynote speeches to Netroots Nation probably won't do that.
That said, I wouldn't be sold on Burner as a winning congressional candidate yet. I'm not sure all the usual critics here have it right - they mostly point out how she lost to Reichart when Obama won that district, as though Reichart is some generic Republican instead of a high profile and popular former KC sheriff. Which means that the cards were more highly stacked against Burner than people credit. But, she did lose. And although it could be that I only follow WA politics through SLOG these days, but I can't recall any of her prior stump speeches or ideas she sold to WA-9, so I don't know if she was truly appealing to middle of the road voters or not. But keynote speeches to Netroots Nation probably won't do that.
8
@5 so you think that standing up for women's rights is making a like minded audience fell warm huh?
Well this woman appreciates strong women standing up for women's rights. Reproductive freedom is not a shinny object or a side issue it is the center of all women's rights so pardon me if I am unimpressed with your scoffing. There is no shame in having an abortion and until we change that meme the right will keep winning.
Well this woman appreciates strong women standing up for women's rights. Reproductive freedom is not a shinny object or a side issue it is the center of all women's rights so pardon me if I am unimpressed with your scoffing. There is no shame in having an abortion and until we change that meme the right will keep winning.
9
@2 well duh, yes, providence RI is not in WA -01. Thanks for the info.
Now, tell me again, what is her message on jobs or the economy, which is what she needs to you know, win the election?
it'ss all very good to plaud her for her netroots speeches back east when she should be campaigning here. so, you're her biggest fan hereabouts, what is her message?
disclosure: yes, I like it that she's forward and compelling on women's issues. where is her forward compelling message on the economy?
Now, tell me again, what is her message on jobs or the economy, which is what she needs to you know, win the election?
it'ss all very good to plaud her for her netroots speeches back east when she should be campaigning here. so, you're her biggest fan hereabouts, what is her message?
disclosure: yes, I like it that she's forward and compelling on women's issues. where is her forward compelling message on the economy?
10
@8, is there some sense in which you believe standing up for women's rights at a Netroots keynote would NOT make a like minded audience feel warm?
Nothing I wrote suggests I am scoffing at the issues she spoke to. What I'm scoffing at is our eagerness to think this makes her likely to be anywhere near as useful to us as an Elizabeth Warren would be. We're going to get a McDermott. Possibly a Kucinich, but most likely a McDermott. And that's if any of the 1st District tweedleDems can beat Reichert at all.
Nothing I wrote suggests I am scoffing at the issues she spoke to. What I'm scoffing at is our eagerness to think this makes her likely to be anywhere near as useful to us as an Elizabeth Warren would be. We're going to get a McDermott. Possibly a Kucinich, but most likely a McDermott. And that's if any of the 1st District tweedleDems can beat Reichert at all.
11
@10 Not a McDermott and not a Kucinich because both of those politicians managed to get elected.
Maybe if Ms. Burner was running in the 7th her East Coast Appearance would make some sense, but running in the new 1st? She will likely win the primary due to name recognition, but will go down in a ball of flame against Koster. We are on a path to send Koster to congress, which is regrettable, and would much less likely to occur with a better Democratic candidate.
Maybe if Ms. Burner was running in the 7th her East Coast Appearance would make some sense, but running in the new 1st? She will likely win the primary due to name recognition, but will go down in a ball of flame against Koster. We are on a path to send Koster to congress, which is regrettable, and would much less likely to occur with a better Democratic candidate.
12
@7, Of course Reichert was successful in winning his district twice. He resembles most of the frumpy white middle aged men who live there: Identity Politics.
13
Keep in mind why Darcy Burner said what she said. She saw the power of coming out stories in advancing the LGBT rights movement. It is much harder for people to oppose LGBT rights when they know family members and close friends who are out.
Her argument - and she is far from the only one to suggest this - is that to protect abortion rights in this country, we need to create an environment where the 1 in 3 American women who choose to exercise their legal right to have an abortion can make the difficult decision to come out to family and friends about it if they want to. That they do not have to feel shame for their choice. That people will support them if they wish to come out. And that doing so can help us protect women's rights.
I think that is to be lauded.
Her argument - and she is far from the only one to suggest this - is that to protect abortion rights in this country, we need to create an environment where the 1 in 3 American women who choose to exercise their legal right to have an abortion can make the difficult decision to come out to family and friends about it if they want to. That they do not have to feel shame for their choice. That people will support them if they wish to come out. And that doing so can help us protect women's rights.
I think that is to be lauded.
14
@13 I think this position plays into and validates the right wing position. Abortion, and the process to decide to have one, is no ones fucking business. I suppose you could say that coming out for one thing or another is a part of the process of getting to the point where people recognize what is and is not any of their business, but I don't see it as a means to getting elected in the new 1st.
I'm sure it will be good for Ms. Burner's D.C. career though.
I'm sure it will be good for Ms. Burner's D.C. career though.
15
The Abomination of the Obama Nation
No excuse left not to vote Green
This year it was announced that “progressives” met at the Netroots Nation.
Well, whatever those limousine neoliberals wish to call themselves, progressives they ain’t! ! !
One of the main speakers there was Wall Street revisionist stooge, Van Jones, who appears to have his head permanently affixed up his butt.
Jones has lately been claiming that “we” (always love those self-appointed who claim to speak for the rest of us) never pressured President Obama enough, never protested enough, etc., etc.
Negative on that bullcrap, Van Jones! (Yours truly, alone, protested directly to the White House over a thousand times, in calls, letters, emails, and various protests.)
Jones also prattles on about cap-and-trade; either Jones is a complete idiot who still doesn’t comprehend that Wall Street scam, or he’s even more of a turncoat than he appears?
Whomever Jones really speaks for – Wall Street, the DLC, Jamie Dimon, etc., he speaks for very few Americans today!
Obama of the collateral death by drones!
Obama of torture and preemptive arrests of protesters!
Obama of the War on Whistleblowers!
Obama the silent on Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio and Florida (AND Honduras AND Bahrain)!
Obama who has kowtowed to the Wall Street banksters at every opportunity!
Obama and his attacks on due process and habeas corpus!
Obama who has continued to offshore America through more “free trade” agreements and the Trans-Pacific Partnership!
There is no “lesser” bullcrap anymore!
The most nauseating sight was to watch those “business union” members in Wisconsin cheer Bill Clinton – Clinton who did to Arkansas what Walker is doing to Wisconsin!
Union members my butt!
They wouldn’t know of the sacrifices of the McNamara brothers and Alexander Berkman; the Ludlow Massacre, the Haymarket Massacre or the many women who died so needlessly and horribly in textile sweatshop conflagrations in early 20th century America!
They wouldn’t know why National Guard armories were strategically positioned around the nation to violently respond to labor strikes!
Only the most ignorant, the most uneducated, or the most amoral, would ever refer to Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as democrats or progressives --- they are Wall Street stooges through and through.
Why vote for the lesser when we can vote for the best?
Dr. Jill Stein for president in 2012!
THINK . . . . and vote Green!
[Note to whiners who always bring up future Supreme Court choices – you might want to take a close look at Kagan’s and Sotomayor’s record since they’ve been on the bench --- your argument no long washes.]
More...
No excuse left not to vote Green
This year it was announced that “progressives” met at the Netroots Nation.
Well, whatever those limousine neoliberals wish to call themselves, progressives they ain’t! ! !
One of the main speakers there was Wall Street revisionist stooge, Van Jones, who appears to have his head permanently affixed up his butt.
Jones has lately been claiming that “we” (always love those self-appointed who claim to speak for the rest of us) never pressured President Obama enough, never protested enough, etc., etc.
Negative on that bullcrap, Van Jones! (Yours truly, alone, protested directly to the White House over a thousand times, in calls, letters, emails, and various protests.)
Jones also prattles on about cap-and-trade; either Jones is a complete idiot who still doesn’t comprehend that Wall Street scam, or he’s even more of a turncoat than he appears?
Whomever Jones really speaks for – Wall Street, the DLC, Jamie Dimon, etc., he speaks for very few Americans today!
Obama of the collateral death by drones!
Obama of torture and preemptive arrests of protesters!
Obama of the War on Whistleblowers!
Obama the silent on Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio and Florida (AND Honduras AND Bahrain)!
Obama who has kowtowed to the Wall Street banksters at every opportunity!
Obama and his attacks on due process and habeas corpus!
Obama who has continued to offshore America through more “free trade” agreements and the Trans-Pacific Partnership!
There is no “lesser” bullcrap anymore!
The most nauseating sight was to watch those “business union” members in Wisconsin cheer Bill Clinton – Clinton who did to Arkansas what Walker is doing to Wisconsin!
Union members my butt!
They wouldn’t know of the sacrifices of the McNamara brothers and Alexander Berkman; the Ludlow Massacre, the Haymarket Massacre or the many women who died so needlessly and horribly in textile sweatshop conflagrations in early 20th century America!
They wouldn’t know why National Guard armories were strategically positioned around the nation to violently respond to labor strikes!
Only the most ignorant, the most uneducated, or the most amoral, would ever refer to Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as democrats or progressives --- they are Wall Street stooges through and through.
Why vote for the lesser when we can vote for the best?
Dr. Jill Stein for president in 2012!
THINK . . . . and vote Green!
[Note to whiners who always bring up future Supreme Court choices – you might want to take a close look at Kagan’s and Sotomayor’s record since they’ve been on the bench --- your argument no long washes.]
16
White, angry, upper middle class, college educated feminists wave their fetuses around in public. Whoop-dee-fucking-doo.
File this one under 'The clueless left & why they lose elections'.
File this one under 'The clueless left & why they lose elections'.
17
@ 14, why do people want to keep abortion private? Because it's still a shameful thing in this country. That's one of the reasons why the anti-abortion movement is a powerful one.
One one hand, bringing "shameful" things out of the closet makes them a lot less shameful, and in the case of abortion it could help bring about a much needed culture shift if women were outspoken about it. On the other, abortion is necessary only when unplanned pregnancy happens, and I think a smarter, less risky strategy to pursue is universal, realistic sex education. Teach the kids how not to get knocked up in the first place, and no one will ever need to get an abortion (except in the rare case of contraception failure).
Now, I'm not sure either of these address the root of the problem, which is control over reproduction. Male control of reproduction is a deep seated thing in our culture, and it's the reason why even contraception is being challenged despite the fact that no "murder" takes place, even by the stretchiest definitions of "life" the right want to impose. I would like to see this issue, of which the abortion debate is a symptom, tackled head on, but I haven't the slightest idea of how that should be done.
@ 15, why don't you just campaign for Romney? That would be more intellectually honest.
One one hand, bringing "shameful" things out of the closet makes them a lot less shameful, and in the case of abortion it could help bring about a much needed culture shift if women were outspoken about it. On the other, abortion is necessary only when unplanned pregnancy happens, and I think a smarter, less risky strategy to pursue is universal, realistic sex education. Teach the kids how not to get knocked up in the first place, and no one will ever need to get an abortion (except in the rare case of contraception failure).
Now, I'm not sure either of these address the root of the problem, which is control over reproduction. Male control of reproduction is a deep seated thing in our culture, and it's the reason why even contraception is being challenged despite the fact that no "murder" takes place, even by the stretchiest definitions of "life" the right want to impose. I would like to see this issue, of which the abortion debate is a symptom, tackled head on, but I haven't the slightest idea of how that should be done.
@ 15, why don't you just campaign for Romney? That would be more intellectually honest.
18
@17 I think those are good points, and I am sympathetic to the position that shame is part of the discussion and should not be.
But, I don't think this discussion will play well at all in the upcoming election in the 1st. Again, I suppose it will do good for Ms. Burner's career overall, which will soon include a third pass at martyrdom. It's just a shame we will be sending Koster to congress as a side effect of Ms. Burner's career goals.
But, I don't think this discussion will play well at all in the upcoming election in the 1st. Again, I suppose it will do good for Ms. Burner's career overall, which will soon include a third pass at martyrdom. It's just a shame we will be sending Koster to congress as a side effect of Ms. Burner's career goals.
19
Why are libs so obsessed with the Dino Rossi of dems on the eastside, @7 nails it, riechart might be unpopular to the liberal stronghold of slog, but that doesn't mean crap in a moderate suburb that is his district.
Burner popping up year after year, to sound like a wounded animal just supports the rights stereotypes of limo liberals. Burner is as bad as Eyman or Rossi, she is a professional politician and ideologue who's only role is to martyr their party for sympathy votes.
Its a sad, pathetic display that shouldn't be supported, on either side.
Burner popping up year after year, to sound like a wounded animal just supports the rights stereotypes of limo liberals. Burner is as bad as Eyman or Rossi, she is a professional politician and ideologue who's only role is to martyr their party for sympathy votes.
Its a sad, pathetic display that shouldn't be supported, on either side.
20
This whole conversation at Slog - the previous post picking up on someone using the word "hectoring" and this one especially, defending Ms. Burner's defense of women as if someone were attacking it - completely miss the point. Two back-to-back threads at Balloon Juice Monday wound up mostly attacking Ms. Burner's keynote speech at the most important annual political gathering - but not attacking not Ms. Burner herself particularly, and definitely not her liberalism or feminism, but rather the decision to invite her to speak there. Six years after she first disappointed, and four years after a disastrous loss that saw her run twenty points behind the top of the ticket, Ms. Burner is still being treated like a rock star despite having no record of political accomplishments, nor any good prospects of same. She as been running for office full time for six years, and she remains a politician that can speak straight to the heart of those already predisposed to fight on her side - and to no one else. The national effort again being marshalled to her side is a sign of the narcissistic and sclerotic decline of a movement that by rights ought to be growing as greedheaded excesses have brought our country low and the Right attacks rights Women thought they won for good a half-century ago. It is unfair at the very least in this instance to denounce those who criticize the veneration of Ms. Burner and her lack of political talent as if they were attacking Feminism.
21
I like your Darcy Burner. I do not like your Burners. Your Burners are so unlike Darcy Burner.
I bet she'd be a lot more popular if she wasn't preceded by a marching band of self-indulgent bullshit like this post. 99% of the discussion of Darcy Burner is discussion about how we should say nice things about her and how people need to have some specific view of her on a personality-basis otherwise they're just completely wrong and fuck those guys. And oh, Darcy, we love you, fly hither and thither and yon to talk about talking about yourself as long as you aren't doing it in WA-01! We'll pay you to do it.
If her platform is solid, I can't tell. She's surrounded by squawking Fuckbirds that can't settle down long enough for her potential constituents and neighbors to listen.
I bet she'd be a lot more popular if she wasn't preceded by a marching band of self-indulgent bullshit like this post. 99% of the discussion of Darcy Burner is discussion about how we should say nice things about her and how people need to have some specific view of her on a personality-basis otherwise they're just completely wrong and fuck those guys. And oh, Darcy, we love you, fly hither and thither and yon to talk about talking about yourself as long as you aren't doing it in WA-01! We'll pay you to do it.
If her platform is solid, I can't tell. She's surrounded by squawking Fuckbirds that can't settle down long enough for her potential constituents and neighbors to listen.
23
Don't mind me, I'm just here to watch Washingtonians slug it out.
More constructively, is anyone interested in responding to points made by @21 et. al. Because while I agree with the politics behind her rhetoric, I can't help but agree with @21 that melting my deep blue heart (gratifying though it may be) is not a guaranteed path to electoral victory.
Just curious.
More constructively, is anyone interested in responding to points made by @21 et. al. Because while I agree with the politics behind her rhetoric, I can't help but agree with @21 that melting my deep blue heart (gratifying though it may be) is not a guaranteed path to electoral victory.
Just curious.
24
@21, Burner IS popular. And her constituents ARE listening. She's leading the field of the Democratic candidates in WA-01 by a wide margin. She polls the best against Koster, even though all Dems are currently polling behind Koster. She won the most votes for the state party endorsement, even if it was just shy of a majority. Most of the campaigning she is doing is in WA-01, which means it's outside Seattle, which means most Sloggers will never see or hear any of it. But that campaigning is happening, it addresses issues that voters in the district care about, and it's paying off as the polls show.
25
@21 I'm tired of all the condescending snark that Burner gets here on Slog. There's a short list of liberals that Slog loves to hate on. Burner, Kucinich, to name just a few. It's a big part of what makes liberals so distasteful to the independents: we love to attack each other instead of unifying against the opposition. Purity trolling helps no one.
26
@25
I think you're using the term purity troll wrongly. The people who are vocally tired of Ms. Burner (and, yes, I am one) see themselves - rightly or wrongly - as pragmatists who wish to see her candidacy replaced with one more likely to succeed, or at least not yet tarnished with repeated and resounding failure. A purity troll is someone who is unwilling to tolerate the slightest deviation from the purest possible ideological line, and so is constantly insisting on wholehearted support for some darling of the left who has no ability to reach out to moderate Democrats and swing voters. I'm not sure that last is a fair description of Ms. Burner - I think she's a demonstrably poor politician, but I don't think she's a rabid ideologue inherently repugnant to moderates - but "purity troll" is definitely a fair description of some of her most outspoken supporters, and is not a fair description of any of her antagonists, whatever other derogatory and disreputable categories some of her detractors might fairly fall into.
I think you're using the term purity troll wrongly. The people who are vocally tired of Ms. Burner (and, yes, I am one) see themselves - rightly or wrongly - as pragmatists who wish to see her candidacy replaced with one more likely to succeed, or at least not yet tarnished with repeated and resounding failure. A purity troll is someone who is unwilling to tolerate the slightest deviation from the purest possible ideological line, and so is constantly insisting on wholehearted support for some darling of the left who has no ability to reach out to moderate Democrats and swing voters. I'm not sure that last is a fair description of Ms. Burner - I think she's a demonstrably poor politician, but I don't think she's a rabid ideologue inherently repugnant to moderates - but "purity troll" is definitely a fair description of some of her most outspoken supporters, and is not a fair description of any of her antagonists, whatever other derogatory and disreputable categories some of her detractors might fairly fall into.
27
24: Ah, yes, but don't underestimate Burner's penchant for snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory. She may be 100% solid on policy positions, but that doesn't make her a good campaigner. She's never been good (as far as I can tell) to listen to campaign advice or not stop digging when she's in a verbal hole.
I just don't understand why she doesn't get some elective experience by running for the legislature, for example.
I just don't understand why she doesn't get some elective experience by running for the legislature, for example.
28
@26, "A purity troll is someone who is unwilling to tolerate the slightest deviation from the purest possible ideological line"
It'd be true if the expression wasn't mostly used against people who defend core principles of progressivism. Pragmatism has little to do with electing establishment Democrats who govern like moderate Republicans and eventually get their clocks cleaned out by Republicans (like what happened to the blue dog coalition in 2010)
It'd be true if the expression wasn't mostly used against people who defend core principles of progressivism. Pragmatism has little to do with electing establishment Democrats who govern like moderate Republicans and eventually get their clocks cleaned out by Republicans (like what happened to the blue dog coalition in 2010)
29
@20:
Might the fact that Darcy Burner chairs the Board of Directors of the Netroots Foundation have something to do with her being asked to keynote a session at Netroots Nation? The Foundation is the 501(c)(3) arm of the organization. Or maybe it might have had something to do with her recent tenure on the board of directors of NARAL.
But I'm sure neither of those bona fides would suffice for someone as open-minded as you.
Might the fact that Darcy Burner chairs the Board of Directors of the Netroots Foundation have something to do with her being asked to keynote a session at Netroots Nation? The Foundation is the 501(c)(3) arm of the organization. Or maybe it might have had something to do with her recent tenure on the board of directors of NARAL.
But I'm sure neither of those bona fides would suffice for someone as open-minded as you.
30
@#29
Frankly, these facts clarify her participation but act only to shift the blame. What record of accomplishment, or even of effective advocacy that was ever noticed outside of the community of people who already agreed with everything she was saying, does Ms. Burner have? How what possible reason did Netroots Foundation or NARAL put her on their boards? And has she done anything for either organization, instead of simply cashing their checks and using her position to snag premium speaking opportunities that would more sensibly have gone to someone of demonstrated accomplishments or to a rising star, rather than a two-time loser (who declined in support the second time, in 2008, even as Obama won the district by fifteen points) who's done nothing but run for office (and apparently "serve" on boards) for the last six years or so.
Frankly, these facts clarify her participation but act only to shift the blame. What record of accomplishment, or even of effective advocacy that was ever noticed outside of the community of people who already agreed with everything she was saying, does Ms. Burner have? How what possible reason did Netroots Foundation or NARAL put her on their boards? And has she done anything for either organization, instead of simply cashing their checks and using her position to snag premium speaking opportunities that would more sensibly have gone to someone of demonstrated accomplishments or to a rising star, rather than a two-time loser (who declined in support the second time, in 2008, even as Obama won the district by fifteen points) who's done nothing but run for office (and apparently "serve" on boards) for the last six years or so.
31
Dennis Kucinich began his career as a city council member. He ran for congress and lost TWICE before he LOWERED HIS SIGHTS and ran for mayor in the city where he had been a council member (Cleveland.) Then he lost a bunch of races, and finally got on the state senate. Only then did he win an election for the US House.
Howard Dean was a state rep for four years before he ran for Lieutenant Governor.
Our President was a state senator for eight years before running for the US Senate.
See a pattern here? Darcy Burner had no detectable political career before volunteering for Dave Ross's campaign in 2004, and it's insulting to the voters of the 8th and 1st Districts to enable her colossal hubris by continually supporting her run for a position for which she is demonstrably unqualified.
Howard Dean was a state rep for four years before he ran for Lieutenant Governor.
Our President was a state senator for eight years before running for the US Senate.
See a pattern here? Darcy Burner had no detectable political career before volunteering for Dave Ross's campaign in 2004, and it's insulting to the voters of the 8th and 1st Districts to enable her colossal hubris by continually supporting her run for a position for which she is demonstrably unqualified.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
It's Spring! Who's Ready for Street Harassment? by Cienna Madrid
-
New Gun Enthusiast... by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Gonna Boil My Laptop After Answering This One by Dan Savage
-
America Doesn't Care About Black People by Charles Mudede
-
Bigot Florist Files Countersuit by Dominic Holden
-
US Military Grants Itself the Power to Police American Streets and "Quell" "Civil Disturbances" by Brendan Kiley
-
SL Letter of the Day: Living Discomfortably by Dan Savage
-
Slog Super Poll: Who Should Be Mayor? by Dominic Holden
-
Black Market Elimination Fail: Draft Pot Rules Call for Ban on Hash and Hash Oil by Ben Livingston
-
Tim Burgess Quits the Mayor's Race by Dominic Holden
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (31) RSS