Race-baiting and the politics of division

Does the current Guardian cover mean that racism influenced our endorsements?

The political season must be in full swing because yesterday I was accused of racism, twice, both times by white men promoting different candidates of color. And both times, the accusations had no merit, but both men are so blinded by partisan allegiance they have refused to drop a tactic that is poisoning our political dialogue and creating unnecessary divisions in San Francisco's progressive movement.

The first was in a hit piece on the Guardian by Beyond Chron's Randy Shaw, in which he accuses the Guardian of being part of a progressive political machine that is trying to squeeze out supervisorial candidate Jane Kim, who the Guardian gave our number two endorsement to today, pretty much showing how ridiculous his conspiracy theory was in the first place.

But toward the bottom of the column, without contacting me or Jane first to determine whether it was true, Randy tossed off this zinger: “I found it quite illuminating that the Guardian’s City Editor Steve Jones told Jane Kim late last year that she should run in the very conservative, Asian-American majority District 4 rather than District 6, where her progressive views are in sync with voters. He was in effect saying that as an Asian-American Jane should run among 'her people,' implying that demographics prevailed over issues and political stands.”

Actually, as I told Jane at the time, back when she was district shopping for place to run for supervisor, and as I told Randy and his BC cohort Paul Hogarth yesterday, my argument had nothing to do with race, “in effect” or otherwise. My argument was that D4 Sup. Carmen Chu has been a terrible, conservative supervisor with weak connections to her district, yet no challengers in this election, and that perhaps a progressive school board member with citywide name recognition could unseat her and expand the board's progressive majority. And that made more sense to me that taking on a good progressive candidate like Debra Walker, who had been doing the legwork on this race for years and was poised to win, in the process unnecessarily dividing progressives, wasting resources, and possibly letting downtown's candidate take this progressive seat.

Yet while Beyond Chron ran my letter to the editor today (along with an editor's note that tried to undercut it), Shaw and Hogarth have, for reasons I don't understand and they won't explain, refused to correct the article, which is continuing to spread this defamatory misinformation, causing their readers to print comments such as “I can't believe Jane was told to go run in a different district because she is Asian!!!” and “racism has reared its ugly head.”

This is the kind of whisper campaign politics one expects from Karl Rove or the late Lee Atwater, but it's not what one should expect from progressives in San Francisco, particularly when the target is other progressives in San Francisco. But again, that's what this brand of myopic partisanship breeds, this ends-justified-the-means nastiness and reckless disregard for the truth.

And if there's any doubt that this is about partisan allegiance rather than an honest difference of opinions, just consider that Paul Hogarth (who once planned to run in D6 himself) is actively working on Kim's campaign, something that Shaw didn't disclose in his hit piece. When I asked Hogarth about what seems a clear conflict of interest, he wrote, “In every article I have written about District 6, I have disclosed that I endorsed Jane Kim and gave $20 to her campaign. If you can point to an article where I didn't disclose that, I will correct the error. The 'work' I have done on the Jane Kim campaign is no different than the unpaid volunteering I have done for Mark Leno, David Chiu and many many other campaigns over the years -- outside of work hours, evenings and on weekends. I am a political blogger, and like many bloggers I volunteer on campaigns.”

But it seems clear that Hogarth's partisanship influences Beyond Chron's approach – including the hardball tactic of race-baiting – and that this publication isn't honest about that. When my then-girlfriend Alix Rosenthal ran for D8 supervisor four years ago, we at the Guardian disclosed that fact in every article we wrote on the race and I recused myself from writing directly about it or participating in this paper's decisions on coverage and endorsements. Beyond Chron seems to have a very different standard.

The second episode of racial politics came last night when Sup. Chris Daly lashed out at us for not endorsing his candidate in D6, James Keys, who is African-American. “It's a Bay Guardian White Out. They are actually recommending a Board of Supervisors with no African-American representation,” was Daly's Facebook status update last night once our endorsements came out, a theme he also hammered on our blog and in direct messages to Guardian staffers and others.

Actually, a quarter of our supervisorial endorsements – Dewitt Lacy and Chris Jackson were our second and third choices in D10 – were African-American, as was one of our three school board endorsees. But Daly instead focused on the fact that our top picks in Districts 6, 8, and 10 were white and turned that into a bludgeon with which to criticize our failure to endorse Keys (whose endorsement interview, which you can listen to here, seemed to indicate that he just wasn't prepared for this job).

Daly is both a hothead and a smart guy, and in my conversation with him today, he said that he doesn't actually believe that racial bias influenced the Guardian's endorsements. In fact, it was closer to the opposite, arguing that we should have been more biased in favor of endorsing candidates of color and promoting that fact on our cover photo.

“A core value of our community is to value and empower communities of color. I've worked hard to promote grassroots candidates from communities of color,” Daly told me, a point that I happen to agree with. We should promote qualified candidates of color and even give them the edge when all other factors are equal.

But that shouldn't overcome our concern that Keys isn't yet ready to be a supervisor, just as we chose not to endorse Malia Cohen in D10 because she doesn't share our progressive values. Yes, race is important, and Daly is right when he says, “We don't live in a color blind society and we need to account for historic occurences of racism.”

Yet when race-baiting and accusations of racism are inappropriately used as political weapons to discredit opposing points of view, that just turns people off to politics and undermines legitimate concerns about the racism that does still exist. And there's nothing progressive about that style of slash-and-burn politics.


Number of people of color in editorial positions at the BG: 0
Number of unionized workers at BG: 0
amount of white liberal entitlement and "pat on the head" diversity: infinite amount


Posted by W. H. Itey on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 2:08 pm

not sure where you're getting your numbers?

Posted by marke on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 3:15 pm

From reading the paper and some additional FACTS (FACTS are things that are real and not pulled out of one's ass) :-)

Posted by Guest on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 9:38 pm


When are you going to post my interview with Bruce and Tim?

Here's the video link.


You know kid, you may be a little thin-skinned for your line of work.

Go Giants!


Posted by Guest h. brown on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 3:04 pm

Whose opinion counts for shit. Why are you kissing his ass here?

Get a little self-respect man.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 4:26 pm

SFBG: "We'd rather see polls open for a week, not just one day."

Do a little research, they're open for a month at City Hall, every day, where you can vote any ballot-type in the city, regardless of what supervisorial or congressional district you're in.

You can also vote, starting now until 8pm on Election Day by mail. Not provisional, it's a real deal ballot kids. In fact, almost a majority of voters in SF vote this way already.

This bill claims it will cost around one million dollars to do a Saturday election. Bull Shit. I can tell you for a fact it will cost at least three million dollars. How is the city going to afford it? I didn't see any of your opinions in that regard.

Posted by Dylan on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 3:22 pm

When women of color are in positions of power people can't wait to trash us...Folks of color and white progressives...they love to lament our absence but can't wait to trash us once we are there....

Tony Kelly was the only person in the D10 race to stand up to Lennar and the shipyard debacle...shouldn't that count for something...or should we just ignore the fact he was willing to take a risky stand against Labor...

Debra Walker is a solid Progressive always has been since her days of challenging live work lofts in the Mission and beyond...some of us still remember that...to this day she continues to be a great advocate....when was the last time Lesbians had representation at the Board are we going to accuse all Progressives who don't support Debra of homophobia because they are supporting candidates who are "straight" !!

Get a life !!!

The New Machine...please Randy Shaw , Walter Wong...? The new machine ! laughable...

Please those same people accusing everyone of racism supported Chris Daly how many years ago last time I looked he was straight white and male but has been an amazing advocate for low income communities and communities of color... now all of sudden everyone is concerned about race and inclusion maybe they should look in their own shop before pointing their fingers elsewhere... I am always concerned about race and inclusion but this is one time when I support the Guardians choices....

We have some amazing candidates Kim..Meko..Keys..Ana Conda but I happen to support Walker and Kelly I think when it comes to knowledge and experience dealing with land use issues they have it...what is wrong w/ having experience and years of advocacy and living in a district for years....for me there is something to be said for that ...again they all have their strenghths.....but I agree w/ the ultimate conclusion the Guardian made here....

Posted by Guest on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 4:53 pm

Steve writes that he was accused of racism twice yesterday, but I don't recall making that accusation. I did call it a Bay Guardian White-Out. I call it like I see it, and it's hard not to see it on today's cover. Call me a hot-head all you want, but the SF Bay Guardian did more damage to progressive politics in this town in a day than I have in a decade.

Even though you accuse me of saying something I didn't, I won't demand an immediate correction!

Posted by Chris Daly on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 7:19 pm

Are you still here? Go home Chris, you're annoying.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 07, 2010 @ 8:15 am

Chris, I made the nuances of your position clear in this post, and I didn't even include comments like your text message to me, "Since I'm white, can I get op-ed space in your paper," the implications of which are also clear.

Posted by steven on Oct. 07, 2010 @ 9:42 am

The most significant implication of my text message is that I'm funny. The implication of your response is that you are lacking a sense of humor.

By the way, I talked to Tim Redmond, and apparently I can get space in your paper!


Posted by Chris Daly on Oct. 09, 2010 @ 1:07 pm

That pretty much says it, "useless Supervisor, soon-to-be useless bartender. You have, during your unfortunately long tenure as Supervisor, turned your back on the majority of the people who live in your district, instead doing whatever it took to push yourself forward. Your "victories" are few compared to the number of times you've been out for your own self-aggrandizement.

Why didn't you simply move to Fairfield and screw up THEIR lives for a few years?

Posted by Ken Howard on Oct. 07, 2010 @ 1:59 pm

Le Triple Endorsement Blanc du Guardian did not raise my eyebrow, after all, we saw it coming for a while.
But the insistent, repeating contention that Keys is not yet ready to be a supervisor does baffles me.

Having been a fulltime legislative aide at Daly's office for several years nust be seen as powerful as a fart in the ocean then ?
Which other D6 candidate has insider, working knwoledge on how to pass progressive legislation ? Hm ?

Blacks in BOS seats, given (to the excception of Ella Hill and Terry Francois) have not been God's gift to liberal San Francisco....

No one seems to object to Jane's claim to be the FIRST Korean-American liberal BOS candidate. I sure don't either.
Kelly is right on about Lennar. So is Nyese Joshua, who unfortunately did not reach the cap fir City Matching Funds.

Basing SFBG opinion , thus attempting to influence the electorate on a grainy audio of Keys editorial interview (that kept freezing on my server, could not even listen to it...), and slapping a grim preface to the audio on your site insults our intelligence.

Posted by mesha Monge-Irizarry on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 8:50 pm

Sorry, I am going to have to stop you right there. Was James a legislative Aide for years or was he an unpaid intern? My understanding was that he was an intern. Please clarify.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 10:03 pm

You are right to correct Mesha: James was an unpaid intern, not a legislative aide, and that's a significant difference. I've been urging people to listen to the tape, or even ask around City Hall, because I'd really rather not get into criticizing James' shortcomings. I just don't see the point in doing so. I'm happy that he's advocating the issues that he is and representing a few different marginalized communities, and it's admirable that Daly wants to help him become a more engaged and effective advocate. But I stand by my position that he's not yet ready to be a supervisor, and I hope that not getting our endorsement doesn't discourage him from staying active in the progressive movement and gaining the experience he needs to perhaps one day be ready for this job.

Posted by steven on Oct. 07, 2010 @ 9:53 am

Looking at this message board I notice a lot of criticism of the Guardian that neither BeyondChron nor Chris Daly would tolerate on their forums.

Based on that alone I think we should support the Guardian as a forum that can tolerate opposite viewpoints against two parties that do not tolerate dissent.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 11:24 pm

I feel a bit sorry for SF progressives.

They are a niche group trying to perfect the peasants, none of them could be elected to jamb their agenda down peoples throats anywhere else in the nation.

Like all extremists they can't get along with each other very well, they are all true believers and giving an inch is the same as being a conservative. The uni-mind is the goal, deviating from it is apostasy. In this case the progressive creepy obsession with race gets them into hysterics.

Daly and Steve are worked up like a Trotskyite and a Stalinist screaming over ideology while at a birthday party for Gus Hall at a museum to atheism. In the end Jones and Daly are obsessed nuts.

the progressives remind me of reading about cities in Texas and the south that elected Bircher members to their boards in the 60's. The Bircher's passed anti-UN resolutions, made laws about selling communist goods, blamed any set back on the 35 town liberals and the ACLU, saw conspiracies at every turn and looked down on regular moderates as dupes of the communists.

Sour and joyless is no way to go through life.

Posted by matlock on Oct. 07, 2010 @ 12:07 am

Conservatives are magnetized politically because they make money off of politics.

Progressives and liberals are in it for the principles and values, there is no universally held orthodoxy, and have no magnetizing force behind whatever organization we can cobble together.

When progressive institutions do make money off of politics, nonprofits and unions come to mind, no matter how much good they do otherwise, they are unreliable coalition partners because magnetized conservatives are able to identify a price point where they rapidly turn on their former allies.

There is no reciprocal point of vulnerability that progressives and liberals can express on conservatives to get them to turn on their own. The notion of balance between liberals and conservatives is thus skewed to the extent that one side has a structural advantage over the other and is in a position to maximize that advantage, ruthlessly.

Half of the reason why progressives win in San Francisco is that conservatives overplay their hands.


Posted by marcos on Oct. 07, 2010 @ 6:27 am

James Keys came to my office as a constituent looking to give back to the district. Our office recognized his value within weeks, asking him to dedicate more time. James graciously committed to volunteering full-time in our office. Within months, James was basically running the front-end of our office, coordinating constituent services. James eventually took over managing other volunteers, representing the office at community meetings, and working on district-related legislative matters. His job was that of the old 3rd Legislative Aide, but he did the work for no pay.

James left City Hall to run my reelect in 2006. Under the toughest conditions, James did solid work (and he was paid, for those of you who seem to think this is the most important test.)

It is frustrating to hear the critique from those in other camps that James was not a Legislative Aide, because he wasn't technically an employee of the City and County. If you want to get technical, the actual City job title is "Legislative Assistant." Nobody's ever claimed that title for James, but I think "aide" is a pretty accurate description of his role.

Posted by Chris Daly on Oct. 07, 2010 @ 7:10 am

okay...yes Nyese Joshua is very impressive and was everywhere on Lennar...and took courageous stands as one of the leaders of POWER...

But I nearly gagged when I read Shaw's allegedly "objective" piece on the D6 race it is no secret who he supports in this race..EVERYONE KNOWS!!

Still it is ironic that he would dare to present himself somehow as the great white hope rescuing Communities of Color , women of color ...we can represent ourselves ..how many writers of Color are there on the Beyond Chron staff...how many management of color in his own house...maybe he should start scrutinzing there...he can write an objective piece on that ! hmmm maybe it is just perception.....

It is really weird when all these white men go around playing the race card...a really curious phenomenon ...

So people slam the Guardian for speaking for communities of color and yet
last time I looked the editorial staff at Beyond Chron was white !! Many of those weighing in on this issue with one or two exceptions are all white men !!!!

Keys and Meko both long time residents of 6 were not one of the three perhaps one of them should have been...Kim is #2 ...great ! no diss to Jane she has always been respectful and kind...good on the issues..

But I am not going to apologize for supporting Kelly and Walker...Walker has been in the trenches for years fighting the good fight we have not always been on the same side of the issues but she is a fighter I have seen it !... lesbians have not been represented at the Board for years ...so much smacks of homophobia and ageism...there two more isms to add to the dish -- tired of it...I don't think that we should be punished for supporting someone who has lived in an artist community and worked in that community for over 10 years ..and who some of us have known and worked with for all those years....there is something positive to be said for having experience here.......

Tokenization is intriguing ...everyone tosses us around but can't wait to throw us under the bus when it doesn't suit their agendas...

Posted by Guest Christina on Oct. 07, 2010 @ 8:40 am

nyese joshua impressive? did you see her meltdown in the bayview when she wasn't seated at a debate? this is mental illness. POWER? leaders? they took the money and ran and had no reason to be in the bayview other than their need to boost their own numbers. they lie. great white hope! what decade are you livin in?
the only way to get beyond racial hatred is to first admit that you are racist. heal yourself.

Posted by are you joking? on Oct. 07, 2010 @ 2:47 pm

One of the responses to my observation that the Great Guardian White-Out would lead to a Board of Supervisors without African-American representation for the first time since before Ella Hill Hutch is that diversity is much more than about race. While this is true, I don't believe that we can do diversity justice without including a strong racial-justice component.

So Walker and Kim campers have correctly pointed out that we haven't had lesbian representation on the Board since the days of Leslie Katz and we've never elected a Korean-American. While true, both of these responses miss the mark in terms of diversity and district elections, and the experiences and identity that James Keys brings to the campaign.

A survivor of domestic violence who is HIV+ and in recovery, James keys is formerly homeless and, over the years, has lived in about half a dozen of the district's residential hotels. Like tens of thousands of his neighbors, he is poor. As far as defining issues of both political struggle and diversity, I can think of none more important than class. When have we ever opened the doors of power to someone with this background? Never. So when I hear Steve Jones talk about how James Keys isn't "ready" to be Supervisor, I wonder if there ever will be someone with this background who will be. My guess is no. And there isn't anything that is more divisive than that.

Posted by Chris Daly on Oct. 07, 2010 @ 10:30 am

Re: "Looking at this message board I notice a lot of criticism of the Guardian that neither BeyondChron nor Chris Daly would tolerate on their forums."

Thanks for that note. We not only tolerate criticism, we encourage it; that's why we allow all these comments to be freely posted, and we are happy to host a forum for debate on these issues.


Posted by tim on Oct. 07, 2010 @ 10:50 am

Dear SF Voters,

Read those door hangers carefully, see link below


Remember it's perfectly okay to mislead voters if you use the correct font size on your disclaimer.

Vote "no" on Saturday voting. It's a royal waste of tax payer money.

Vote "yes" on Fleet Week.

Posted by Save Boeddeker Park on Oct. 07, 2010 @ 12:21 pm

"And that made more sense to me that taking on a good progressive candidate like Debra Walker, who had been doing the legwork on this race for years and was poised to win..."

This is exactly what I was talking about in my commentary on the other article. The "I called dibs on the D6 supe seat and put in my time" argument in favor or Walker is such BS. The candidate to be supported ought to be the best candidate. Period. Not the one who "called it," like a seat on the bus in elementary school. For all of the respect that SF politics merits, this is some weak-ass, childish, bs. Oh and to address the "let's not help the downtown candidate by dividing the progressives," tell Walker to stop her gutter-dwelling trash talk.

Posted by Diddulus on Oct. 07, 2010 @ 12:32 pm

there are really only four choices in D10:


sweet is tainted.
moss is questionable.
jackson is not credible.
the remainder are not in serious contention

Posted by D 10 voter on Oct. 07, 2010 @ 2:31 pm

Cohen is all 3. Otherwise, decent folks, though not sure how "credible" Lacy is. Seems like he tells people whatever they want to hear. And Jackson is the only progressive candidate with proven vote-getting ability. As such, I'd still rank him first. Enea is well-meaning, but doesn't have the campaign operation to win. "Not in serious contention" would actually describe Enea's candidacy pretty well.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 07, 2010 @ 3:22 pm

Enea has $26K in the bank, more than Jackson or Sweet, and her ground team has been out in force. Lacy has $800. His "consultant" Claude Everheart made a few phone calls to get him some endorsements. The endorsements got him $12K in public matching funds. Those matching funds and more went straight to Everheart. That's why Lacy's watching football instead of hanging doorhangers - he can't afford to print any.

Posted by Joe on Oct. 12, 2010 @ 3:48 am

Enea has $26K in the bank, more than Jackson or Sweet, and her ground team has been out in force. Lacy has $800. His "consultant" Claude Everheart made a few phone calls to get him some endorsements. The endorsements got him $12K in public matching funds. Those matching funds and more went straight to Everheart. That's why Lacy's watching football instead of hanging doorhangers - he can't afford to print any.

Posted by guest on Oct. 12, 2010 @ 3:54 am

ok, you're probably right about Enea - no operation, but few real problems. Lacy and Cohen are both young and smart. Jackson is only seen as progressive because he is young and naive. He also sometimes has a problem with, uh, the truth. He says little that makes much sense to me. He really doesn't know much about the district and just repeats what he's learned from Lacy. Kelly?

Posted by D 10 voter on Oct. 07, 2010 @ 4:14 pm

Remember that Lacy didn't get the nod from his own Democractic club. They've seen him in action. So have I. He has trouble figuring out how to introduce a motion. Nice guy, but not ready for prime time. And isn't it a bit odd that Mr. Local Hire hired the guy who torpedoed Young Community Developers? Does he even know who he's dealing with?

Cohen knows that development is the most important issue facing D10 but hasn't managed to learn a thing about it in more than a year of campaigning. I guess she doesn't have to if she's just going to do whatever Lennar tells her to.

Kelly is always talking out of school. It might sound like he knows a lot about Redevelopment, say, but he doesn't. His ideas aren't based in reality and he doesn't have the relationships or skills to implement any of them anyway. $100K in back taxes, remember? Do you really want him running a municipal bank?

Enea has experience and knowledge. She has the ear of every one of D10's major players. Ask yourself what matters more: knowing how to run a campaign, or knowing how to legislate. I'm voting Enea #1.

Posted by Also a D10 voter on Oct. 12, 2010 @ 4:44 am

can anyone tell me what Mr. Lacy has done in the district besides being a VP of a democratic club that wouldn't even endorse him? he may be a nice guy and smart enough to hire claude everhardt (sp?) but that doesn't win you a seat.

with respect to jackson - please explain his problems with the truth...

finally enea is a great activist and right on a lot of things (in addition to being wrong on quite a few, particularly dealing with taxes and municipal finance). its unfortunate that he campaign never got the traction it deserved.

i think we can now look forward to either sup. moss or sup. sweet and start preparing for a challenger in 2014. hopefully the progressives can get their recruitment in order.

Posted by guest on Oct. 12, 2010 @ 2:57 pm

This is what i see: David Campos: a native of Guatemala; Avalos: 3rd generation Mexican-American; Mirkarimi: Iranian father; David Chiu, Carmen Chu and Eric Mar: Chinese-American; Dufty: gay. i think that's pretty dang good if you're looking for diversity. And last i looked, district 6 anyway, is not majority African-American...and Debra Walker may not be African-American, but she's a woman and she's gay...and, come to think of it, she’s an artist! (OMG, artists unite!).
All this to say, in my life experience, wisdom, cultural sensitivity and effectiveness can come from anywhere--any religion, any sex, any race…and conversely, it doesn't always come from places you think it will. i think frankly all this haranguing is another form of the politics of fear. Fear of what this time? that there might not be an african-american, or a “whatever”, on the board, for now?
i like to take a larger view: there are some good candidateS in district 6; we've got IRV in place to afford a more sophisticated election result if voters inform themselves and choose to use it. and hopefully, just as i think it's not helpful to play the race/gender/sexual preference/you-name-it card to this degree, i also trust that voters will not simply defer to the Guardian's endorsement and will do their own research and trust their own gut.

Posted by Guest daniele erville on Oct. 07, 2010 @ 4:39 pm

This thread, like many others elsewhere, demonstrates that the phrase "progressive politician" is a contradiction in terms.

In the 1970s, SF had a genuine progressive movement. It was a vehicle for the people to pressure the politicians and to hold them accountable for their behavior. I felt honored to be part of such a movement.

In recent years, however, the politicians have infiltrated and co-opted SF progressivism. It has now become a tool for various politicians to manipulate the voters in order to promote the careers of the politicians and the wannabes.

This process of co-option has now reached the sorriest level of all. Various politicians and their cliques, all claiming to be progressive, are using progressivism to attack other progressive cliques, with each clique packaging itself as "the progressive alternative in this race."

Once any group that claims to be progressive starts endorsing particular politicians, it invites the politicians and their operatives to move in, take over the group, and use it as a vehicle for their own aggrandizement. And that's what we have today in SF.

Enough! It's time to throw off the yoke of all the cheesy politicians and their operatives. SF progressivsm should return to its populist, independent roots.

It should refrain from endorsing any particular politician. Instead, it should challenge all the politicians about their records, make the information publicly available, and let the voters make up their own minds for themselves.

The same, by the way, applies to spinners posing as journalists, such as Steven T. Jones. He packages himself as a journalist. But in fact, he's a spinner for certain politicians whom he favors, using The Guardian as tool for his propaganda.

Journalists should be equal-opportunity skeptics. They should challenge all the politicians' claims. They should pursue truth for its own sake. They should not be spinners. They should not use their media positions as tools for favoring any one clique over another. Anything less is unprofessional and dishonest.

SF progressives: Free yourselves from the co-opting politicians!

Steven T. Jones: Be a journalist, not a spinner!

Posted by Arthur Evans on Oct. 08, 2010 @ 2:20 pm

How about a simple " I Support Civility"

Print up 836,000 copies and distribute immediately
Spread the word. Do the work. Become a citizen.

Posted by Joe Citizen, San Francisco on Oct. 09, 2010 @ 1:16 pm

Instead of progressives playing the tedious "I'm more PoC-sensitive than thou" game, I'd be a lot happier if established San Francisco progressives helped build a training camp or some other incubator program to help more progressives of color develop the necessary practical chops on running for political office or developing political alliances.

Posted by Peter on Oct. 12, 2010 @ 3:53 pm

As is clear from same editorial endorsements in Berkeley, there is what could be classified as racial discrimination (as well as LGBT) in play in their election as well.

The editor endorsed a slate of white / upper middle classed / straight rent board slate candidates over the choice of a progressive, hispanic gay male (one who has broad based backing {elected reps, police and fire, the stonewall democrats, etc.}. It is clear that in his selection, he simply placed a call to an old political pal in Berkeley and asked him who to endorse (no fact checking, no calls to potential candidates, etc.). It is no wonder that SFBG opinion page is seen as fitting to line a bird cage (but not necessarily read). Shame on you - and thank goodness voters can look elsewhere to gather useful information.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 13, 2010 @ 4:25 pm

I am impressed by the man. He has come a long way in the past 10 years and I am ready to see what he does in office. James Keys has a lot of good ideas and he has a different perspective. He has my vote and I hope he wins!

Posted by Guest on Oct. 18, 2010 @ 11:13 pm