Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Best in Thought | Re: Clinton and the Boys »

Monday, November 5, 2007

Gov. Gregoire Has Not Endorsed Democrat Bill Sherman

posted by on November 5 at 16:53 PM

Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire is remaining “neutral” in the King County Prosecutor’s race.

I’ve already bashed Democratic state Sen. Adam Kline for endorsing the Republican in the race, Dan Satterberg.

But I was a little stunned to find that the Democratic governor has not enthusiastically endorsed a Democrat like Bill Sherman—a young, electable Democrat whom progressive voters in Seattle and King County are excited about. Gregoire needs a little traction in King County and getting behind a promising local candidate like Sherman could help. Or, more succinctly: Not helping the Ds win the KC Prosectuor’s Office could hurt.

I called the governor’s campaign outfit today and asked a simple question: “Where’s the governor on the KC Prosecutor’s race?”

Campaign head Kelly Wicker said this: “The King County Prosectuor’s race. The person I have to ask about that is on the phone.”

Okay, what? You guys don’t know right off the bat where the Democratic governor is on the King County Prosecutor’s race? You know—the race the State GOP just dumped $126,000 into?

Gregoire’s folks were pretty slow about calling me back, so I called Sherman’s campaign, and they told me that Gregoire has not endorsed Sherman—something about having to work with whoever wins.

Again: What? Part of a governor’s job is building his or her party. Gregoire’s party, if she isn’t clear on that, is the Democratic Party. If Satterberg wins, the governor won’t owe him any kind of explanation. She’s the Democratic governor. He was the Republican candidate. It’s kind of a no-brainer, unless you’re Christine Gregoire, I guess.

RSS icon Comments


Methinks some big corporate contributors are helping her not weigh in on this.

Which is a bad choice.

Remember, the reason the election was so close last time for Gov was because Seattle did not vote for her overwhelmingly.

We are the margin of victory.

Not them.

Posted by Will in Seattle | November 5, 2007 4:56 PM

Or maybe, just maybe, Gregoire doesn't think Sherman is the best for the position. It would be hypocritical for her to support the Dem, no matter who they are, just because they're a Democrat, regardless of their talent, qualification, or what not.

Maybe Gregoire thinks this is the most honest thing she can do in this case... not endorsing the Dem, but also not endorsing his opponent.

Posted by Phelix | November 5, 2007 4:58 PM

Jenny - her buddy Jenny Durkan got her to stay neutral ... bad leadership.

Posted by Leyland | November 5, 2007 5:00 PM

Leyland @ 3 nailed it - Jenny Durkan, close Gregoire confidant and outspoken Satterberg supporter, got the Governor to sit this one out. Bad move.

Posted by Trey | November 5, 2007 5:06 PM

Okay, how do we punish Gregoire?

Posted by Dan Savage | November 5, 2007 5:09 PM

Hmm...we could raise $126,000 for the state Republican Party next year, then have them funnel it illegally to Dino Rossi's campaign at the last minute.

Posted by Trey | November 5, 2007 5:15 PM

Or maybe, unlike Josh, the governor thinks there are more important qualifications for a job than the letter after a person's name.

Posted by David Wright | November 5, 2007 5:24 PM

It's simple, we punish Gregoire by not voting for her. She's really not been a good governor at all and I'm all about NOT rewarding incompetence and/or slothfulness. Yes, it means voting Republican, but we've had four years of non-descript Gregoire and four years of non-action on transportation. Why would you vote on party lines if you'd be voting for more of the same? Don't reward badness, it's that simple. Could four years of Rossi be as bad or as non-descript as four years of Gregoire?

Posted by chas Redmond | November 5, 2007 5:24 PM

@ 8

Oh, suhweet Christ, you sound like one of the people back in 2000 who was all "how bad could George W. Bush be?"


Friends don't let friends vote Republican.

Posted by Original Andrew | November 5, 2007 5:36 PM


Far worse.

Posted by ivan | November 5, 2007 5:37 PM

@3 - hmmm.

You're probably right.

But, as @9 says, and he's right, Friends don't let Friends vote Republicant.

Look at the massive budget hole the last GOP Sherrif got our county into.

Posted by Will in Seattle | November 5, 2007 5:39 PM

I'm sure Jenny had an opinion on this, but far more likely is that Gregoire understands she is running against a Republican in 2008 and doesn't want to piss off the moderate Republican voters who believe she HAS been a good governor and that Satterberg should be prosecutor. I don't think her endorsement would help Bill that much, and it could hurt her.

Posted by watcher | November 5, 2007 5:45 PM

David Wright = Ralph Nader

" there is not differences in the two parties"

Oh, God. What a crock of shit. Look at America just 7 years later. 60 per cent on the way to a fascist state.

Posted by Leyland | November 5, 2007 5:46 PM

You won't give up on this. TAKE THE CLUE FROM OTHER DEMS: SHERMAN IS NOT QUALIFIED. Amazing that this does not seem to sink in.

Posted by beware | November 5, 2007 5:54 PM

It could mean one of two things:

1) Satterberg has been doing a good job of carrying water for Sims. and he's not all that much of a Republican. In other words, the joke is on the fatcat Republican donors who are pouring money into the campaign of Sims/Gregoire's preferred candidate. The joke is also on you, Josh, for getting all revved up to defeat Sims/Gregoire's 1st choice.

2) Maybe it's a Machiavellian move to suppress Republican turnout for Satterberg.

But the simpler explanation is (1)

Posted by Get a clue | November 5, 2007 6:05 PM

$8 is right you have to punish her.

You do it by raising a stink now, threatening to withhold support, so that she changes.

Then you can vote for her.

To let it go is so weak and stupid it is incredible.

The KC prosecutor is accepting illegal donations in a massive amount. A law enforcement official. Yet even our Gov. won't support Sherman.

Pathetic, as are all the folks who think this is okay. Kind of like Schumer and Feinstein, who have rolled over on Muksey.

Satterburg is not qualified when he is taking massive, illegal, last minute donations. He is corrupt. Why would you reward that by voting for him?

Posted by unPC | November 5, 2007 6:24 PM

Gregoire is no idiot- she sees the train wreck ahead if Bill becomes the elected PA.
Bill is a rookie prosecutor unqualified to supervise even one of the 20% of the office with less experience than he, far less all 260 lawyers and 300 staff.
Jenny endorses Dan, and both Christine and Ron remain silent. Hmmmm.....

Posted by Tdog | November 5, 2007 7:17 PM

and unPC at 16, the minute you have some EVIDENCE that the donors of that money earmarked it for Dan- put it on the table. Until then, think about the hypocrisy of being a "liberal" and yet flinging around accusations based on nothing more than conjecture.
Don't you see this race is the only game in town tomorrow? Of COURSE any money given to the WSRP or KCRP is going to go to Dan. Who else- Jane frickin' Hague???
If you don't like the way the campaign finance rules are written, then get them changed. But until then, quit cloaking your sour grapes that all the big hitters, both D and R, are endorsing Dan and your little boy Billie is simply getting more suppport.

Posted by Tdog | November 5, 2007 7:23 PM

Hey Tdog: I'm a prosecutor in Seattle, and I and a large number of my fellow prosecutors are enthusiastically voting for Bill Sherman. Satterberg may be well-qualified, but IMHO, Bill is too, and I prefer Bill's platform.

Posted by anon | November 5, 2007 8:12 PM

Hey anon- that's great- seriously. Please tell me 3 things: 1) what does IMHO mean? 2) how (other than the muni leagues saying so) is Bill qualified? and 3) what part of his "platform" is it you like so much?

Posted by Tdog | November 5, 2007 8:16 PM

@19 I'm calling BS, anon. What office do you work for? I could be wrong, but there are a few things about your post that indicate you are NOT a King County Prosecutor. Maybe you could give us some quick facts, like the names of some of the unit heads in the office, that would prove me wrong?

TDOG--IMHO means "in my humble opinion."

Posted by T | November 5, 2007 8:26 PM

Oh- I guess I'm not up on the My Space acronyms...

Posted by Tdog | November 5, 2007 8:30 PM

Oh geeze, Tdog. IMHO was a standard net-acronym when the creators of MySpace were in kindergarten.

Sherman's plan to create an environment-law unit and his interest in learning from successes in other jurisdictions (like the juvenile programs in Missouri) are just two off-the-top-of-my-head items in his platform.

Of course, Satterberg wouldn't know about any of that, because he has never had any experience in federal government (as Sherman has), has never clerked for a federal judge (as Sherman has), has never been in the private practice of the law (as Sherman has). Dan Satterberg's experience is dangerously narrow and insular.

Oh, BTW (that means by the way), I'm not a prosecutor or even a lawyer. But I saw nothing in "anon"'s comment to indicate that he or she is anything other than what he or she states. What (aside from your evident antipathy) makes you believe otherwise?

Posted by N in Seattle | November 5, 2007 8:51 PM

Josh re Sherman: "whom progressive voters in Seattle and King County are excited about"

Umm, maybe the ones you talk to. Most of the ones I know really could care less about this one. Anyone who knows Dan Satterberg or who has worked with him over the years, knows he's about as good as it's going to get in the office.

I have yet to see anything come out of Sherman that tells me the office is going to be more "progressive" with him in charge. And his learning curve might be pretty steep. Some of the reform stuff he's mentioned, will not actually take place in the prosecutor's office. It's legislative change, not office policy change.

I've never voted for a repub before, but I'm guessing that when push comes to shove tomorrow, I'll be going for Satterberg.

Posted by gnossos | November 5, 2007 8:57 PM

@23 I'm not sure if that last paragraph was directed at me or Tdog (I'm the one who called BS). What I saw is subtle and I'm not going to tell anon what it was to allow him or her to masquerade anymore until they answer my question--which is REALLY easy for any insider as anon purports to be. Like I said, I could be wrong. But I doubt it. Still waiting...

Posted by T | November 5, 2007 9:02 PM

@23 - while we're waiting on "anon," maybe you could offer up some evidence of all the environmental wrongdoing that goes unpunished because the office lacks an environmental crimes unit. It is another Bill Sherman sound bite that seems cool to us in the Pacific Northwest, but is all smoke when you really drill down on it. The state Department of Ecology charges about 10 cases per year state-wide. The feds also have jurisdiction. It is certainly worthwhile to have criminal penalties for environmental crime on the books, but we already have two agencies that prosecute the crimes. It is an expensive, complex, highly-technical subject. Why shift resources to create such a unit in a local county when you might have five cases a year in the county?

This is like Bill Sherman's "I'll try one case a year" thing. It shows complete ignorance of what good trial attorneys know--that you have to be doing it all the time to be good at it. Bill just wants the publicity.

Your points about Satterberg's lack of breadth of experience beyond the office is a fair one for voters to consider. My response is that he has a lot of breadth of experience in the job that he is running for. I can also assure you that prosecutors are going to national conferences all the time to share tactics, policies, etc. with one another. Bill Sherman's statement about learning from other jurisdictions is not a novel is already happening all the time in King County Prosecuting Attorneys office.

Posted by T | November 5, 2007 9:16 PM

N at 23- how can you buy that crap, man? Seriously- Bill's claim that he will create an environmental crimes unit is pure BS (as T points out) and designed solely for him to follow it with the worn out "and that's why I'm proud to have the sole endoresment of the Sierra Club".

I am a D, and if Bill REALLY had any new ideas, I'd be psyched to vote for him. But I have been in the office for well over 10 years, and around criminal justice for about 17, and I can tell you that virtually every one of his "platform" promises either already exist, have been in the works for well before Norm died Bill hijacked them or simply cannot be done from the desk he seeks to sit behind. Bill would probably be a great legislator, and he'd probably have my vote- but his promises are truly empty when applied to the responsibilities and powers of a County Prosecutor. Either he knows that and is lying to us because he knows those of us D's who are uninformed about the nuances of the job will buy accept them at face value, or he doesn't know that and, well.....

Posted by Tdog | November 5, 2007 9:30 PM

I did not vote for Bill Sherman.

I also did not vote for Dan Satterberg.

Basically, I don't see much of a difference.

Posted by Gomez | November 5, 2007 9:30 PM

a couple typos there- but you get the point....

Posted by Tdog | November 5, 2007 9:33 PM

new polls show Satterberg on five day to election roll, the tide is breaking for him - bye Sherman - back to the old job

for most of us, this race is a toss up

I voted for Sherman, but feel very OK with Dan

the bigger contests are in 2008 - how about some unity here from the VERY vocal Sherman haters?

Posted by Leyland | November 5, 2007 10:30 PM

Tdog, I have a lot of work to do and can't post every 5 minutes. I didn't say I was a KC prosecutor (could also be: city, state, federal, agency), but maybe I am. Anyway, I don't think I have any more responsibility to prove my bona fides than you do. We're both posting anonymously. You purport to represent a bunch of prosecutors supporting Dan, and I say there are also a bunch supporting Bill.

Posted by anon | November 5, 2007 10:38 PM

Is that a little sandeep on your nose?

Posted by Editor's note | November 5, 2007 10:39 PM

What if Sherman actually wins? Sounds like it would throw a monkeywrench into a lot of gears on both sides. As if the state Democrats wouldn't get behind a newly-appointed KC prosecutor. They'll be lining up to kiss his ass all the way to Olympia.

Posted by laterite | November 5, 2007 10:45 PM

P.S. I guess it was "T" who suggested I wasn't a prosecutor? Sorry if I was confused there.

Tell you what, compile a list of all the prosecutors in Seattle, and then cross-reference it against all of Bill's donors, and you'll have a list with me on it! Piece of cake.

Posted by anon | November 5, 2007 10:47 PM

I agree with you as far as the unity needed for the 2008 presidential elections. Most of us "Sherman haters" didn't vote for Bush once, let alone twice. We're mostly lifelong Democrats.

I will say this, though: After hearing/reading all of the bullshit spun by Sherman during his campaign, I'm a little soured by D's right now. But maybe that's not fair...just like all of those idiots trying to pin anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, and the war in Iraq on Satterberg.

Posted by DPA | November 5, 2007 10:48 PM

@31 Sure enough, didn't think you were a King County Prosecutor.

Posted by T | November 5, 2007 10:49 PM

I should have probably added that I was responding to Leyland @ 30

Posted by DPA | November 5, 2007 10:52 PM

anon- if you read the posts, you'll see I was not the one who challenged your identity. I simply asked a few questions, which you've chosen not to answer. I also have never here, nor anywhere, presumed to speak for anyone other than those inside my office whose positions I am certain of. That office, by the way, is the KCPAO- why are you ashamed to admit you work for Carr?

Your second post, though, does make it abundantly clear why you so easily swallow Bill's disingenuous claims about what he'd do for the office. Thank you for that.

Posted by Tdog | November 5, 2007 11:01 PM

So much for my line about not posting every few minutes.

@20: Bill is not 3 years out of law school. His prior experience working at Interior and at a law firm gives me confidence that he will do just fine managing the office. I believe it's been said that he's more experienced than Norm Maleng was when Maleng was elected. Having met both Bill and Dan, Bill seems to have vision and Dan seems like a competent manager. I am more inclined to put my trust in Bill.

Re: platform, I strongly agree with Bill's positions supporting vigorous environmental and elder care enforcement.

Finally, I am skeptical of Satterberg's votes around the '04 election.

Good night everyone! Good luck! See you at the polls!

Posted by anon | November 5, 2007 11:02 PM

anon @ 31-
You're clearly not a KC prosecutor, because Bill would have "refused" your donation, right? So now that we've cleared that up, since you haven't worked with him in the KCPAO, you don't know him like the prosecutors in that office do, and they don't believe he has the experience for the job.

Posted by STP | November 5, 2007 11:05 PM

Oh fine, one more. STP@40: very crafty. Anyway, if you're a prosecutor, you'd know everybody knows everybody else in this town. All I'm trying to say is that there are plenty of prosecutors, both in and out of KCPAO, backing Bill. I'll make my personal, anonymous guarantee of that, and everybody else can say what they want. It's not like anybody's vote will be changed by this anyway.

Posted by anon | November 5, 2007 11:11 PM

Sherman's a weasel. In one breath, he talks about how great Norm Maleng was and how he admired Norm. Then he goes around talking shit about cases he knows NOTHING about (e.g. Dan Ring and some sexual assault case from 2003) and blames it all on Dan for his evil Republican ways.

1) Both of those cases happened on Norm's watch. So Bill is talking shit about Dan, Norm, and the women and men who bust their asses everyday in that office seeking justice (non-partisan justice).

2) Sherman knows ZILCH about the cases he cites. He doesn't know all of the facts surrounding them, nor does he have the expertise or experience to comment about them.

Anon @ 39 - You like Sherman's stance on elder care enforcement? So do I. So did Norm and so does Dan. That's why we have DPAs in the office dedicated to handling just elder abuse cases. This may shock you, but it wasn't Sherman's idea. Its been around before Sherman was even hired.

I don't want to address the environmental stuff, b/c that's already been discussed by others.

So to get back on point for this blog, Sherman was not supported by key Democrats like Gregoire b/c he's a punk!

Posted by DPA | November 5, 2007 11:22 PM

A personal, anonymous guarantee from someone we've established has not worked with BS. There's a ringing endorsement. You're right, nobody's vote is gonna be changed by that.

Posted by STP | November 5, 2007 11:22 PM

anon- are you on crack? You say "@20: Bill is not 3 years out of law school" Where did I say that? at 20 or any post?

as for Bill's environmental subterfuge, read T's post at 26. Oh- and we already have an elder abuse- Bill should know since one of his best friends in the office was in charge of it.

as for having the same experience as Norm when Norm became the elected, a) bullshit: Norm had already been Chief of the Civil Division for 5 years, and b) the county and the office were roughly 1/3 the size they are now. Totally different beast, my friend.

Posted by Tdog | November 5, 2007 11:28 PM

Hi! I'm Bill Sherman's clone. I believe in protecting the elderly and kids b/c they are the most vulnerable. I also believe that drinking lots of water b/c it is important. My republican opponent doesn't believe in protecting old people or kids. In fact, I think he eats kids for breakfast. And don't get me started on how much republicans hate water...

Posted by Bill Sherman Clone | November 5, 2007 11:28 PM

YES!!! The first glimpse of true levity I've seen on this or any other blog- and with a point, to boot!

You're a breath of fresh air, Clone, whoever you are....

Posted by Tdog | November 5, 2007 11:38 PM

Don't try to cozy up to me Tdog. I may be your next boss. If my master Bill wins the election, he will soon be moving on to bigger and better things. First KCPAO, next Master of the Universe! While he is out campaigning for his next policital position, he has promised that I can run the office in his absence. I may even get to try that one case a year he talks about. By the way, didn't you say that you have 10+ years in the office. Cool! You can help me prepare for that trial. I have no idea what I am doing.

Posted by Bill Sherman Clone | November 5, 2007 11:54 PM

@34 Anon, you are hanging yourself further. Now I don't even think you are a lawyer. Why the mystery over who you work for? 260 deputy prosecuting attorneys for King County, probably less for the feds or the city, but still literally dozens if not over a hundred. Why so scared to reveal who you work for? Perhaps because we'll be able to further call BS?

So let's start with this easy one. You've challenged us to "compile a list of all prosecutors in Seattle." Perhaps you can tell us how? 'Cause I sure as hell don't know. And my guess is neither do you, but I'm offering you another chance to prove me wrong. You screwed up the first one.

Anyone else reading at this ungodly hour, how many people really think "anon" is a "prosecutor in Seattle."

Posted by T | November 6, 2007 12:29 AM

Is "anon" a prosecutor? Who cares.

That he or she would actually write "I'll make my personal, anonymous guarantee of that" tells me enough about him or her.

I would rather take bets as to whether "anon" is in fact the President of the United States.

Posted by whocaresaboutblueorred | November 6, 2007 12:44 AM

lemme guess--employment section at the city?

Posted by Gidge | November 6, 2007 12:46 AM

@50 I doubt it. TDOG is giving "anon" too much credit, the content / tone of his or her posts demonstrates that the person is definitely not a government lawyer, probably not a lawyer at all. Agree or disagree with them, the pro-Satterberg insiders have at least revealed enough detail to convince a thinking person that they are who they say they are. Not so the case with the mystery "prosecutor" with no employer, bizarre phrases, and inability to provide any working knowledge of ANY governmental office, much less the KCPAO.

Way to help out your cause, anon!

Posted by T | November 6, 2007 12:57 AM

Even if anon is posing (he's obviously not a KCPAO employee), we all know that there are a couple of Shermanites in the criminal division. We have to admit that there are a few prosecutors (inside or outside of the office) who are backing the wrong horse.

Posted by Gidge | November 6, 2007 1:07 AM

You guys are a hoot! I still haven't seen any of you out yourselves. Maybe you're waiting to see how the election turns out?

Sorry, but a) I am a prosecutor, and b) I'm not going to bother to prove it. Have a nice day!

Posted by anon | November 6, 2007 7:07 AM

@ 53 Anon, you are a total joke, and it is pathetic that the best argument you can advance for your candidate is to fake who you are.

Lest anyone else be fooled by anon's BS, here are some of the giveaways:

1. No one in the KCPAO refers to themselves as a "prosecutor in Seattle." They ALWAYS refer to the county.

2. There is no master "list" of all prosecutors.

3. There is no "agency" to add to federal, state, county, and city when you are talking about government prosecution.

4. Anon has declined all invites to offer any details, no matter how generic, about where he works. The rest of the deputy prosecutors here have identified themselves as working for the county; anon won't come clean on his supposed employer, not because it will jeopardize his anonymity, but because it will further reveal his lies.

Posted by T | November 6, 2007 8:42 AM

Anon - thank you for supporting my master! If he wins, he may award you with a position in the PAO. That Tdog person does not appear to have much love for my master. Since you are a prosecutor, will you help my master run the office? Unless you've only tried DUI cases for a year or two, you probably have more experience than my master.

By the way, my master is the only candidate endorsed by the Cascade Water Drinking Club. Who needs Gregoire, Durkin, Kline, et. al.?

Posted by Bill Sherman Clone | November 6, 2007 8:46 AM

@54, 51, 48, 44, etc.: Wow. That's an awful lot of venom directed at me for making a simple point that's obviously true: that there are plenty of prosecutors who will be voting for Bill Sherman today, just like there are plenty who will be voting for Satterberg.

As for the points at 54 regarding supposed "giveaways" that I am a fake:

1) Not KCPAO: we already covered this. Weren't you the ones speculating that I am a Seattle city attorney? And surely you don't contest my point that lots of people at the various offices are friends, and talk professionally, and have a very good idea what goes on elsewhere?

2) No master "list": No kidding. Talk about security problems, not to mention keeping it updated. The remark was meant to be sarcastic; sorry if it was too subtle.

3) Wrong, there are detail assignments to/from various state and federal agencies all the time. I'm sure the attorneys on those details would be surprised to hear your opinion.

4) Sorry, have to avoid an appearance of impropriety. Opinions are diverse everywhere.

Finally, I don't believe I've insulted any of you in this thread, but you seem very quick to belittle me. If you in fact are prosecutors, I hope this isn't the temperament you display when managing cases. Don't forget to do justice, please.

Posted by anon | November 6, 2007 9:31 AM

@56 I am simply calling you a liar. True, you haven't taken personal shots at anyone, but you have insulted the readers of this blog, your candidate Bill Sherman, and the real prosecutors with your BS. I told you at first what I suspected and invited you to prove me wrong. So far you have only proved me right.

And frankly the point in your first paragraph is not "obviously true." Because you are not who you say you are, how do you have any basis other than pure speculation that there are "plenty" of prosecutors who will vote for Bill Sherman? You've got a number of pro-Satterberg DPAs posting here, all of whom talk to their colleagues and have a feel for their office. You're the first pro-Sherman prosecutor I've ever seen post, and you turned out to be a fraud.

Posted by T | November 6, 2007 9:59 AM

@57 Call me whatever you want, T, if you're a prosecutor you know I've heard worse.

You (purportedly) work in a huge office in which you can call yourself a DPA and still maintain relative anonymity. Maybe I don't have that luxury, which would be an equally good explanation for my lack of detail.

Anyway, if you are a prosecutor, I would think you'd be familiar with this phrase: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." My not "proving" that I am a prosecutor does not establish that I'm not. I find your "logic" disputatious and unconvincing.

You like Dan, I like Bill, we're probably both actually prosecutors, let's just wish both the candidates luck.

Posted by anon | November 6, 2007 10:11 AM

@58 Actually, I am not a prosecutor and never claimed to be. I am married to one and am friends with a bunch of 'em.

And no, your explanation is not "equally good." We know you aren't a King County DPA. If you are a Seattle City Attorney, you're one of about 87.

If you are a fed, you're one of about 64.

That isn't enough anonymity for you? Perhaps you are on one of those special secret "agency details" that you referred to previously. OK. If so, and you are so familiar with other local government law offices, why don't you offer up some examples of other such special agency details (not yours, we wouldn't want to expose you!).

Posted by T | November 6, 2007 10:26 AM

The internet message control operatives of the Satterburg campaign on local blogs are the most relentless I have ever seen. Hats off to Satterburg campaign for covering these bases.

However, I'm hoping you aren't actually examples of what the county prosecutors office is all about because you sound like a bunch of narrow minded insufferable &%#$#@s.

And the way you talk about the proscutors office makes it sound like you think it is some kind of elite military unit. I keep expecting one of you to actually say "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!"

Posted by cracked | November 6, 2007 10:43 AM

@59 And if I work for Bellevue or Kirkland? Shoreline? Redmond (you know, the people prosecuting Jane Hague's DUI, allowing Satterberg to still appear at fundraisers with her?) Renton? Kent? Auburn? Why don't you link to their offices and find out how big they are, and how anonymous one of their employees could remain?

Also, I never said attorney details were "secret." Quite the opposite. But if you don't understand that they aren't, it's clear why you think my reference to them suggests I'm a "fake."

I guess if the (purported) Spouse Of A King County Prosecutor simply won't be convinced that I'm also a prosecutor, know both the candidates, and resolutely prefer Bill Sherman, I can live with that. Enjoyed the flame war. Best of luck.

Posted by anon | November 6, 2007 10:47 AM

@61 You said "in Seattle." I enjoyed it as well. Drive safe tonight!

Posted by T | November 6, 2007 10:53 AM

Blah blah blah...let's get back to the real subject: me. I have realized that my clone intelligence has now superceded my master's. I may have to lock him in the closet and take over the world myself. Muwahahaha!!!!

Posted by Bill Sherman Clone | November 6, 2007 10:59 AM

@62 Seattle, more or less. King County, definitely.

Posted by anon | November 6, 2007 11:02 AM

@64 Uh huh.

Posted by T | November 6, 2007 11:16 AM

I'm going to be up close and personal with my specific criticisms of Dems who don't realize we are the party of the Big Tent tonight - including the Gov and Jenny D if I run into them.

Names will be taken.

Votes have consequences. And betrayal of qualified competent Dems for Republicants is never OK and does have blowback.

Posted by Will in Seattle | November 6, 2007 11:50 AM

Will, definitely. And for all of you pro-Satterburg people, what about Jane Hague's DUI (comment 61)? What kind of head prosecutor does a fundraiser with someone who's accused of driving drunk? Drunks kill people. When he appears with her, he basically says it's no big deal. I don't care what anbody else says, pro or con, I won't vote for Satterburg because of that alone.

Posted by Blue Star | November 6, 2007 12:57 PM




Posted by Freddy | November 6, 2007 1:42 PM

Will you prosecutors please shut up? Don't you have some prosecution work or something to do?

Posted by J.R. | November 6, 2007 1:47 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).