ENDORSEMENTS: National and state races


Editor's note: the file below contains a correction, updated May 5 2010. 

National races



The Republican Party is targeting this race as one of its top national priorities, and if the GOP can dislodge a three-term senator from California, it will be a major blow for the party (and agenda) of President Obama. The pundits are happily talking about how much danger Barbara Boxer faces, how the country's mood is swinging against big-government liberals.

But it's always a mistake to count out Boxer. In 1982, as a Marin County supervisor with little name recognition in San Francisco, she trounced then-SF Sup. Louise Renne for an open Congressional seat. Ten years later, she beat the odds and won a hotly contested primary and tough general election to move into the Senate. She's a fierce campaigner, and with no primary opposition, will have a united party behind her.

Boxer is one of the most progressive members of the not-terribly progressive U.S. Senate. She's been one of the strongest, most consistent supporters of reproductive rights in Washington and a friend of labor (with 100 percent ratings from the AFL-CIO and National Education Association). We've had our disagreements: Boxer supported No Child Left Behind, wrote the law allowing airline pilots to carry guns in the cockpit, and was weak on same-sex marriage when San Francisco sought to legalize it (although she's come around). But she was an early and stalwart foe of the war in Iraq, split with her own party to oppose a crackdown on illegal immigration, and is leading the way on accountability for Wall Street. She richly deserves reelection, and we're happy to endorse her.




It's odd that the representative from Marin and Sonoma counties is more progressive by far than her colleague to the south, San Francisco's Nancy Pelosi. But over the years, Lynn Woolsey has been one of the strongest opponents of the war, a voice against bailouts for the big Wall Street banks, and a foe of cuts in the social safety net. We're proud to endorse her for another term.




George Miller has been representing this East Bay district since 1974, and is now the chair of the Education and Labor Committee and a powerhouse in Congress. He's too prone to compromise (with George W. Bush on education policy) but is taking the right line on California water (while Sen. Dianne Feinstein is on the wrong side). We'll endorse him for another term.




We've never been terribly pleased with San Francisco's most prominent Congressional representative. Nancy Pelosi was the author of the bill that created the first privatized national park at the Presidio, setting a horrible standard that parks ought to be about making money. She was weak on opposing the war, ducked same-sex marriage, and has used her clout locally for all the wrong candidates and issues. But we have to give her credit for resurrecting and pushing through the health care bill (bad as it was — and it's pretty bad — it's better than doing nothing). And, at a time when the Republicans are trying to derail the Obama presidency, she's become a pretty effective partner for the president.

Her fate as speaker (and her future in this seat) probably depends on how the Democrats fare in the midterm Congressional elections this fall.


An endorsement for Jerry Brown in an uncontested primary. Wow. This time you guys really outdid yourselves. Face it: you are a bunch of over-the-hill, out-of-touch, fucking hippies that sold out their ideals ions ago. So why don't you do the progressive community a favor by firing yourselves and getting out of the way for a younger generation that still dreams and whose futures are actually at stake here. You've had your chances and you've failed miserably.

Posted by Matt Stewart on Apr. 27, 2010 @ 9:22 pm

Dammit, Doug Coupland, stop posting under pseudonyms.

Posted by jw on Apr. 27, 2010 @ 11:47 pm

Yes Matt, the future of the ones that can not defend themselves are at stake. And what I do not understand is why progressives still look to the government for the answer (protection)? I don't get it. What ever happened to the rugged individualism of men and women with the entrepreneurial spirit ? Did they drug it out of you Marin kids? What did they feed you in public school? Progressive dribble is what I guess.

Man up Matt !
Start a business. Run for Office. Raise a Family. Protect the Weak. Pull up Your Pants Matt and put down your IPod and get busy MAKING a difference and not "dreaming" that maybe government will help you.

Bigger G is not the answer. Her big Union buddies love the progressive movement. You are such useful idiots....it is a page from their playbook, right out of the communist manifesto.

Posted by Guest Retire Woolsey on May. 01, 2010 @ 12:07 pm

Obama is a socialist dictator hardy har!

Posted by etherealite on Sep. 29, 2010 @ 10:22 pm

"articulate"? really?

Posted by Guest on May. 06, 2010 @ 7:46 am

to clarify my point, I think she's perfectly articulate but using that particular descriptor is a little patronizing

Posted by Guest on May. 06, 2010 @ 7:49 am

Ah, you mean "well-spoken, a credit to her people"? ;)

Posted by Guest on Jun. 01, 2010 @ 3:18 pm

"But here‘s where I stand. I think the president is handling this just right, because he has already doubled the troops in Afghanistan."

-- Barbara Boxer, Oct. 20, 2009

Beware for whom you vote.

Posted by Bill Jensen on May. 17, 2010 @ 6:28 pm

Really? really.
I'm sorry, would you like your rattle as well as your bottle?
Barbara Boxer is irrefutably one of the strongest progressive voices in the Senate, and a vocal antiwar critic.

Go let perfect be the enemy of good why don't you?

Posted by Conan Neutron on Jun. 07, 2010 @ 10:19 am

It's rare that I leave a category blank when I vote, but I simply cannot vote for Kamala Harris because of her position against decriminalizing sex work and demonizing sex offenders. I get that the Guardian is endorsing her because of her good points, but when a public official plays politics and uses your very existence to get elected, you have to draw the line somewhere. I am a progressive democrat and a sex worker. I will not vote for Kamala Harris or any democrat who takes these sorts of rightwing sex negative positions. If she is selected in the fall, even if it is a tight race, I will leave the field blank.

Posted by Guest on May. 19, 2010 @ 8:08 am

Perhaps the Guardian, rather than endorsing uncontested candidates, should endorse (to those of us who don't claim party affiliation and yet can request ballots from either party) candidates in neck-and-neck races who have the least likely chance of winning against the candidates you guys favor. Because really, the primary is all about the November elections, anyway. Just a thought.

Posted by Guest on May. 23, 2010 @ 9:56 pm

Perhaps the Guardian, rather than endorsing uncontested candidates, should endorse (to those of us who don't claim party affiliation and yet can request ballots from either party) candidates in neck-and-neck races who have the least likely chance of winning against the candidates you guys favor. Because really, the primary is all about the November elections, anyway. Just a thought.

Posted by Guest on May. 23, 2010 @ 9:57 pm

Oh - and also Stereotyping. Dreams. Determination. Intolerant.
These are some of the descriptors that popped into my head as I read the comments heretofore. [Like that one?] I am, truly, SOOO thrilled that the (supposedly) "younger" people who wrote them seem to be filled with entrepreneurial spirit and independence and --by golly Bill-- gumption! Seriously, that's what "younger" people are FOR! However, the lumping of all people 50 and older into categories like "hippy" and "old-therefore-stupid-and-useless" is very seriously an idiotic tact to take. If you are at the other end of old, stupid, and useless, that doesn't make you forward-thinking and vibrant. It makes you young, stupid, and useless. Although it seems to be true --for, perhaps, the majority of the population-- that the longer one lives, the fewer risks feel comfortable, do most of the rest of us really think that knee-jerk assessments, failures to consider the big picture while rushing judgment, and comparative broad-stroke ravings are the winning formula? They could all, every one of them, be written by folks from Fox News. Read 'em again. Perhaps it's the testosterone, I don't know. I know that the Editor of this valuable publication is a fine Midwestern boy who just happens to be 50 or older. He formed his views by living through them. I know you don't have that luxury, but you might, as they say, give peace a chance; and that means being at least enlightened enough to get past exclusionary rhetoric and find a way to bring people to your way of thinking by giving thoughtful explanations and arguments instead of using Little George Bush playground bully rantings and name calling. sheesh. Grow up and tell me why it's important that your ideas need to be both heard and heeded. What is it, precisely, that we can all go towards together? Or are you just trying to do some right-wing $#!% disturbing? If not, then how about finding ways to build community and coalition --regardless of age or any other "difference"-- and the message might come through much stronger and louder. Otherwise, I might join the rest of the people who find merit in my comments in taking a short nap in the middle of proceedings. Heard it before. Means no more now than it did then.

Posted by Guest KristiM on Jun. 03, 2010 @ 1:59 pm

Charter schools should be automatically classified as evil. Beware of didactic rationale for something you do not know of.

I will be voting for Gloria Romero.

Posted by Conan Neutron on Jun. 07, 2010 @ 10:20 am

Romero likes Charter schools

Posted by Guest on Jun. 07, 2010 @ 9:19 pm

Also from this author