Olague faces her challengers during first D5 debate

|
(58)
Sup. Christine Olague is seeking election to the D5 seat Mayor Lee appointed her to in January.
SF Newspaper Co.

Tonight's inaugural District 5 supervisorial debate will be a key test for Sup. Christina Olague – who has fallen from favor with many progressives after a series of bad votes and prickly or evasive interactions with one-time allies – and a test for the rival candidates who are seeking to become the main progressive champion in one of the city's most leftist districts.

The elected incumbents on the Board of Supervisors have ended up with surprisingly easy paths to reelection [8/9 UPDATE: with the exception of Eric Mar in D1], leaving D5 – as well as conservative District 7, where FX Crowley, Norman Yee, and Michael Garcia are part of a competitive field seeking to replace termed out Sup. Sean Elsbernd – as the race to watch this year.

Olague has been trying to execute a tough balancing act between the progressive community that she's long identified with and the moderates she began courting last year with her early support for Mayor Ed Lee, who returned the favor and appointed her to serve the final year of Ross Mirkarimi's D5 term. But by most accounts, she hasn't executed the feat well, usually siding with Lee on key votes, but doing so in a waffling way that has frustrated both sides.

Progressive candidates such as Julian Davis and John Rizzo will have plenty of fodder with which to attack Olague as a turncoat, including her votes on the 8 Washington project and Michael Antonini, her strange antics on repealing ranked-choice voting, and her close ties to power brokers such as Rose Pak, who hosted a fundraiser that provided more than half of the $81,333 Olague has raised this year, much of it from developers and other interests outside of D5.

Matt Gonzalez – the former D5 supervisor, board president (from where he appointed Olague to the Planning Commission), and mayoral candidate – was so frustrated with Olague that he withdrew his endorsement of her last month, a decision that her other progressive endorsers are also said to be mulling.

With Mirkarimi tarnished by his ongoing official misconduct probe, the endorsement of Gonzalez could be the most significant in this race, and he told us that he plans to make a decision by Friday, the deadline for submission of ballot statements and a point at which we may hear about other changed or dual endorsements from prominent progressives. Other key nods in the race so far have been Aaron Peskin endorsing Davis and Tom Ammiano endorsing Rizzo, two candidates each vying to become the favorite of the left, with Thea Selby, Hope Johnson, and Andrew Resignato also courting support from the left.

Yet so far, the strongest challenge of Olague seems to be coming from her right, with moderate London Breed leading the fundraising battle with $85,461 as of late June 30, including the maximum $500 donation from venture capitalist Ron Conway – the main fundraiser behind Lee's election last year – which may be a sign that Olague's support among moderates is also soft.

Olague may be trying to get back in good with the progressives, last week introducing pro-tenant legislation sought by the San Francisco Tenants Union. But impressions have formed and the pressure is now on, and so far Olague – who didn't answer our calls seeking comment, another troubling trend – hasn't performed well in public appearances, mangling organizations' names and generally not winning over her audiences.

Will Olague step up now that the campaign in entering its public phase? Will another candidate catch fire with progressives? Find out tonight from 6-7:30pm at the Park Branch Library, 1833 Page Street. It's sponsored by the District 5 Democratic Club, the D5 Neighborhood Action Committee and the Wigg Party.

Or if you miss it, catch the next one on Tuesday, sponsored by the Harvey Milk Democratic Club, starting at 7pm in the Eric Quezada Center, 518 Valencia Street.

Comments

The question on most people's lips will Olague show up for the debate tonight, or will she excuse herself? As in the past she has not shown any intrest in speaking before D5 voters, yet on the other hand she seems quite willing to speak to downtown intrests, makes one wonder!

Posted by Guest on Aug. 08, 2012 @ 3:18 pm

The question on most people's lips will Olague show up for the debate tonight, or will she excuse herself? As in the past she has not shown any intrest in speaking before D5 voters, yet on the other hand she seems quite willing to speak to downtown intrests, makes one wonder!

Posted by Guest on Aug. 08, 2012 @ 3:18 pm

"Who cares?" People don't pay attention to politics in the summer - people with lives outside the cloistered confines of progressive San Francisco that is. Maybe a grand total of 125 people will have an impression or remember anyone in this debate. It's a warm, sunny day leading to a nice night and The Normals are way more concerned with dinner and what's on the Olympics than a dusty, irrelevant "debate" happening somewhere in District 5.

Posted by Troll II on Aug. 08, 2012 @ 3:47 pm

Spoken like the true Troll you are: spouting provocative statements and belittling others' perspectives without bothering to inform yourself. Par for the course.

Posted by steven on Aug. 08, 2012 @ 4:09 pm

Your recognition of my "true" Trollness means a lot to me.

Posted by Troll II on Aug. 08, 2012 @ 4:32 pm

Actually Troll II made a pretty good point. It is such a non political season right now that the BOS takes the month off.

His statement actually was more significant than the OP who said that most people were wondering if Olague was going to show up. That's helpful? 'Most people'? Was a poll taken or is that just hollow wishful Progressive rhetoric?

But I get it...the original OP was mocking someone that the SFBG is also trying to belittle. Which is a good thing.

I'm just trying not to laugh because both Bruce and Steven have posts up where they complain that people don't return their calls. Yes, weak bullies tend to have that problem I think.

Posted by Troll on Aug. 08, 2012 @ 5:07 pm

I'm confused as to why The Guardian is excited we're having not one, but TWO, debates during the dog days of August. That's a torrid pace so early - 2.5 months before the first day of voting. And with all of these candidates wanting to say something and "make a statement" these forums are going to be about as informative as a Dulcolax commercial - which come to think of it is probably the exact product the demographic attending these "debates" in person would find the most use for.

Posted by Troll II on Aug. 08, 2012 @ 5:30 pm

D5 is lining up to be such a RCV cluster*fck anyway. They might as well just throw darts or make the candidates thumb wrestle to see who wins.

With RCV we're going to have another situation where someone winds up with 25% of the vote and is declared the 'majority winner', like Sup. Cohen.

At least if they did Ro-Sham-Bo for the seat the winner would have some proven strategic skills.

Posted by Troll on Aug. 08, 2012 @ 5:53 pm

that none of the other 75% would have voted for Cohen.

That seems extremely unlikely. She was the most supported candidate and so would normally be expected to win.

RCV does lead to some anomalies, such as with the appalling Quan. But generally it gives the same result as any other method. and it should - the idea is to save time and money, and not to rig the result.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 09, 2012 @ 3:53 am

race, and Don Perata lost because more people didn't like Don Perata. Anomaly? None whatsoever.

___________________________________

lillipublicans©, impostered but never equaled.

http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2012/08/03/supervisors-prepare-receive-mirk...

Posted by lillipublicans© on Aug. 10, 2012 @ 6:40 am

to remove her. You really need a better example of RCV working. There's been a couple in SF so I know you have a choice.

Posted by lillipublicans© on Aug. 10, 2012 @ 9:55 am

with "progressive" orthodoxy.

Posted by matlock on Aug. 08, 2012 @ 6:13 pm
Mar

"The elected incumbents on the Board of Supervisors have ended up with surprisingly easy paths to reelection..."

I was under the impression that Mar was facing a tough reelection campaign.

Posted by The Commish on Aug. 08, 2012 @ 9:45 pm

Don't you know, the Chamber of Commerce line is that it's impossible for incumbents to lose under RCV. Which is why we supposedly need to get rid of it. If there's such a thing as a difficult election, then the above axiom cannot be true. But if it's true, then why is the Chamber spending big bucks to try to defeat him?

Crap, now I'm confused. Ok, you tell me. Which narrative are the conservatives advancing today?

A. Progressives are on the ropes, or
B. Incumbents always win under RCV?

Posted by Greg on Aug. 08, 2012 @ 10:45 pm

The incumbency issue is only one of the glaring weaknesses that makes RCV an unsatisfactory system. The minority rule problem, e.g., Supervisor Cohen won a majority election even though 75% of the voters completely left her off their ballots, is a bigger weakness. There are too many RCV problems to mention here, suffice to say that no major American city outside of the Bay Area other than Minneapolis uses it. It is an insult to the voters of San Francisco.

My guess is that, in this case, people are saying that Mar might lose in spite of the RCV incumbency problem, which is certainly possible despite the fact that there will be no 'up/down' vote on Mar's record due to the weaknesses of RCV.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 08, 2012 @ 11:55 pm

just RCV. The main factor is having a lot of candidates.

Look at when Arnie won the CA Gov'ship originally. 140 candidates and he won with barely 20% of the votes - no RCV there either.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 09, 2012 @ 3:50 am

Saint Paul Minnesota, Portland Maine, and more American cities all the time, and worldwide too.

_______________________________________________________________
lillipublicans©, impostered but never equaled
http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2012/08/03/supervisors-prepare-receive-mirk...

Posted by lillipublicans© on Aug. 09, 2012 @ 6:58 am

chill. I wasn't advancing talking points. I just posed an inquiry regarding Mar's campaign, which I haven't been following too closely. No reason to make a mountain out of mole hill.

Posted by The Commish on Aug. 09, 2012 @ 9:05 pm

Truth is, yes he is facing a tough re-election, he'll probably still win in the end, and it won't be because of IRV.

But don't you find the contradictory narratives that the moderates are advancing a bit confusing at times? Your post just provided a good opportunity to point that out.

Posted by Greg on Aug. 09, 2012 @ 10:54 pm

Mar's pushing for 10 acres of GGP to be converted from grass to artificial turf at the Beach Chalet soccer fields will badly hurt him in the Richmond District. That idea was from the late rightwing Republican billionaire Donald Fisher who found a big friend in Eric Mar.

That was a complete sellout of the Richmond District (and progressives and environmentalists in the Richmond District - especially after the sellout had gotten the endorsement of the Sierra Club) but that's what happens when the person who's elected has no history with the district and only was in position to win because he's a "progressive" and was pushed by the City's insider machine to run in the Richmond District.

He's no progressive in my book. I'm a progressive and no progressive who cares about GG Park would be pushing to convert a large LIVING grass field in GG Park to DEAD plastic turf and a million pounds of toxic tire particles.

What Mar and the other supes that supported that fraudulent EIR that R&P Genl Mgr Ginsberg had his hands all over have done is established a terrible precedent where it's okay to REMOVE LARGE CHUNKS of GG Park from its ecosystem. It will BE MUCH EASIER IN THE FUTURE to change large large fields in GG Park from LIVING grass to DEAD plastic turf thx to Mar and the other supes (all except Olague).

That grass field is no longer part of the park's ecosystem. Ginsberg could put a huge building there and have "the kids" play there (85% of the extra hours will be used by adults who will pay big fees to play there - thus privatization of a public asset) and it would be the same as what's going in there because in both cases, that area is really no longer part of GG PARK since it's no longer part of the park's ecosystem.

People, DO NOT vote for Eric Mar. I say the same thing about the other supes that voted for it (all of them EXCEPT Sup. Olague - thx Sup. Olague for being the only supe who cared for the future of GG Park) but Mar deserves to be singled-out because, 1) he's supposedly some great progressive - BS, no REAL progressive would do that and do the bidding of the late Donald Fisher, Gavin Newsom, and Phil Ginsberg, 2) he represents the area (the Richmond District) adjacent to GG Park.

THE REAL DANGER in voting for Eric Mar (including putting him either second or third in RCV) is that you're telling all future Richmond District supes THERE WILL BE NO PRICE TO PAY FOR RUINING GG PARK since Mar got away with it. If he loses, THEN ALL FUTURE SUPES WILL LEARN A LESSON that they are putting their political future on the line by going along with the Fisher-Ginsberg-Newsom machine in converting large chunks of GG Park from living nature to man-made dead toxic materials.

Is it possible that the person who wins could be worse than Mar on issues that have nothing to do with ruining GG Park? Sure, and then there will be a push for A REAL PROGRESSIVE to run against him. But if Mar is defeated, the message will be rec'd by all future supes - whether progressive or not - that it's political suicide to push for taking big parts of GG Park out of the GG Park ecosystem. That's a lesson THAT HAS TO BE LEARNED and a lesson Eric Mar HAS TO LEARN.

REAL PROGRESSIVES will not vote for Eric Mar, for REAL PROGRESSIVES don't want someone working secretly behind their back for people like the late Donald Fisher, Phil Ginsberg, and Gavin Newsom so they can radically change the nature of GG Park from nature to DEAD plastic.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 10, 2012 @ 11:52 pm

Mar is wrong on this issue. But who do you propose we vote for instead? This David Lee guy who was created by the machine and their billionaire backers out of thin air? Is he going to be better on issues of development, preservation, and environmental protection?

This is another one of those things that you just couldn't see happening if the Class of 2000 was still in there, but Eric Mar is still the best candidate in this race.

Posted by Greg on Aug. 11, 2012 @ 8:40 am

See if you don't punish your so-called friends when they stab you in the back and do the bidding of rightwing Republicans and convert the nature of GG Pk from its natural state to a man-made state (including it no longer be dark at night like real parks are), when they laugh at the DEMOCRATICALLY-CREATED GG Park Master Plan, when they approve a dishonest EIR (that's corruption in my book), then you HOLD NO POWER.

For you've proven that you can be played in any way by "progressive" politicians saying and doing the right thing on "the headline issues" so that on issues that the press completely ignores - like the plasticization of GG Park - they can be very unprogressive so they curry the favor of the Ginsberg-Newsom-Fisher interests.

I basically answered your question in my OP but I'll repeat it here: if Lee wins and he screws up and is not progressive, then he'll serve one term and be out. Two lessons will be learned by future supes in such a case: 1) don't screw around with GG Park, 2) don't act like a rightwinger in a progressive district.

I'll say one thing for conservative voters around the country - they're not afraid to punish turncoats. And the result is they now have politicians that won't be turncoats. It's time progressive voters learned that lesson and fight to defeat those who advertise themselves as progressives, environmentalists, and good govt politicians and then do the opposite of all those things by doing the bidding of rightwing politicians, change forever in a terrible way the GGP environmt, and laugh at a democratically-created document that took 10 years to complete (respectively).

Any progressive who still rewards such a person with their vote has shown that they can be manipulated and thus has no real power or leverage against future "progressive" politicians. Defeat Mar and progressives retain leverage as a force.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 11, 2012 @ 11:13 am

I'm not sure that Eric deserves to lose but he's made it difficult for himself to win a second term because of the political choices he's made.

The underlying fact is that there is no accountability on the progressive side, not amongst unions or nonprofits and not amongst most all electeds.

Absent accountability, there is no moral hazard to screwing your base or losing on critical policy questions. Progressives have been losing power and without that power not been able to win on policy.

On one hand, without popular pressure, there is no incentive for electeds to be accountable, to the contrary, they will avoid displeasing power that is capable of doing something about it.

But on the other hand, these electeds hold tremendous power within the progressive communities and need to be using that power to confront some entrenched and ineffective interests and individuals to hold them accountable for poor political choices that have led to failure.

My contributions to candidates this cycle is 1/10 of what it was 4 years ago because policies I've been interested in have been winning one for every ten I've been losing. So long as labor and nonprofits are allowed by San Franciscans and electeds to stake private claims on public policy on behalf of San Franciscans, we'll continue to see critical mass evaporate and losing political mass means losing gravitational force to hold a coalition together and losing on policy.

Losing losers lose.

Posted by marcos on Aug. 11, 2012 @ 2:29 pm

You're right, Commish, and I'll add an update making that point.

Posted by steven on Aug. 09, 2012 @ 11:05 am

Funny listening to all you armchair commenters. Did any of you go to the debate? I did and the candidates were great. I had the pleasure of hearing them earlier this summer and I have to say that their speaking abilities have greatly improved. Thea Shelby gets my vote for most improvement. But the best speaker, mind you, I am a progressive, was Julian Davis. He was right on top of each of the issues and spoke eloquently. Honourable mentions go to Hope Johnson and Andrew Resignato.

Posted by sfcharley on Aug. 08, 2012 @ 10:04 pm

Agree with sfcharley... I was at the debate, too, and thought Julian was by far the most articulate, experienced, and ready to tackle the corruption at City Hall. I sincerely believe he has the best shot of taking down Olague.. although now moderate business puppet London Breed is coming on strong... she's outraised everyone else in the race, taking money from Republicans like Ron Conway!

Posted by D5Dem on Aug. 09, 2012 @ 5:45 pm

I can dig how much christina has been a dissapointment... Helping fight the first wave of the dot come plague and now rolling out the red carpet for v2.0 etc but I think Eric Mar is at least worth a mention. The guy running against him has some serious baggage that I only learned about throug reading the examiner. Although mar showed strong fundraising numbers, david lee got almost twice as much money from landlords and the usual scum. If people don't come to d1 and knock on doors, work their asses off and give money, then the next few years will be way more fucked than they are now.

D1 is the place to watch and fight over.

Posted by Nate miller on Aug. 08, 2012 @ 10:46 pm

towing a party line. Isn't that exactly what voters should want from a Supe i.e. that they are not exclusively in any one's pocket?

You seem to think Olague should always vote left-wing? But why? Most Sf voters are moderates and Olague isn't usually voting on D5 issues but on city-wide issues.

I think she's doing a decent job of straddling the divide so far, but you're correct that Breed is a good alternate. Either can do the job.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 09, 2012 @ 3:32 am

the ethics charges?
_______________________________________________________________
lillipublicans©, impostered but never equaled
http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2012/08/03/supervisors-prepare-receive-mirk...

Posted by lillipublicans© on Aug. 09, 2012 @ 6:42 am

Regardless of the outcome, certain things are now known:

Mirk assaulted and bruised his wife. He admits it.

Mirk has a criminal record for a violent crime.

Mirk knew he'd be convicted of other violent crimes if he didn't cop a plea.

Mirk's wife has fled the country.

Mirk has less than 25% support among the voters.

Taking all that together, it's hard to see how the brand could be anything other than tarnished. You may support him and even believe that there's a vast right-wing conspiracy against him.

But he's done the left-wing cause no favors whatsoever, and that's what SFBG are saying.

Posted by lillipublicans© on Aug. 09, 2012 @ 7:39 am

This is so much b.s.
He does not have a criminal record for a violent crime.
He has, nor apparently did the DA have, any notion of oonvictions of any other crimes, violent or not.
His wife is visiting her family who live in another country and did not flee the country.
No one has seen a poll showing Mirk has 25% support except for those who paid for it, and they're not sharing it. Even that poll was at the outset when the Chronicle was reliving William Randolph Hearst's dictum of "give me the stories, I'll give you the war." One day it will be a case study in the worst of a long history of Hearst manufactured stories, and that day is not far off.

But thanks for spelling out your own manufactured evidence. It convicts you.

Posted by CitiReport on Aug. 09, 2012 @ 8:24 am

Mirk is a tarnished brand and has set back our progressive agenda in SF because of his anger and control issues. There is no way around that.

Posted by Anonymous on Aug. 09, 2012 @ 11:05 am

I disagree, but I do think this whole ugly spetacle has tarnished Mirkarimi a bit (I'd say Lee and others have also been tarnished) and made his endorsement less important than it might otherwise have been.

Posted by steven on Aug. 09, 2012 @ 11:10 am

Steven, of course Mirkarimi has been tarnished in the minds of some people; but if Lee is even more badly tarnished and the political nature of the ethics process is commonly accepted, then the result is at worst a "wash."

The fact that Mirkarimi is seen as the target of the political machine conversely makes him yet more worthy of support by his constituency in some way, does it not?

_______________________________________________________________
lillipublicans©, impostered but never equaled
http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2012/08/03/supervisors-prepare-receive-mirk...

Posted by lillipublicans© on Aug. 09, 2012 @ 12:35 pm

which tends to show that people don't see them both as the same.

Posted by Anonymous on Aug. 10, 2012 @ 5:09 am

By claiming that Lee's approval ratings are "far higher" than Ross Mirkarimi's, you are only establishing your own willingness to state that for which no proof exists.

There is not one single poll which establishes either Lee's approval ratings or Mirkarimi's disapproval ratings in this matter. (And of course you *know* that.)

No recent poll showing approval for Ed Lee, and *absolutely* *no* poll reflecting opinions of the sheriff subsequent to his and Eliana's testimony before the ethics commission.

The *only* poll took place in March just before Ross was able to get his side of the story out, and it was a push poll that artificially encouraged respondants to answer in the affirmative to the question of whether they supported Lee's removal of the sheriff.

Now, after Lee's duplicity on this matter -- and others -- has come to light; after it has become clear that Lee *wasn't* interested in hearing what Mirkarimi had to say in explanation of the events of Dec. 31, but rather was focused on utilizing the situation for his and his machine's narrow political aims -- no matter what the cost to the Mirkarimi family and young Theo; subsequent to Lee's two-faced talk on stop and frisk; the "bomb threat"....

No. There's ample reason to doubt that which you state as if it is fact.
_________________________________________________
lillipublicans©, impostered but never equaled.

http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2012/08/03/supervisors-prepare-receive-mirk...

Posted by lillipublicans© on Aug. 10, 2012 @ 6:35 am

while as you well know, over 70% disapprove of Ross.

Those are the numbers and they fit with what I hear everyday from friends, neighbors and colleagues. Your excessive protests simply give more substance.

On what planet would voters prefer a wife-beating sheriff to a moderate job-creating Mayor? Not one I've visited.

Posted by lillipublicans© on Aug. 10, 2012 @ 9:53 am

And when I say "do tell" I mean a URL to the poll results and methodology page. There is *no* current (and therefor valid) poll showing either Lee approval or Mirkarimi disapproval.

As for Ross Mirkarimi being a "wife beater" -- that tired bit of mendacity was stale even before our lying mayor mouthed it.

_______________________________________________________
lillipublicans©, impostered but never equaled.

http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2012/08/03/supervisors-prepare-receive-mirk...

Posted by lillipublicans© on Aug. 10, 2012 @ 11:27 am

Sure there is (a way around that): Mirkarimi is not a brand. He's a human being with weaknesses like all of us have. Some will look more at the incident and the anger issues, and play the blame game. But I think nobody has the power to set back our agenda unless you give them that power...Some will look at what's already been done to remediate said weaknesses. When Ross gets re-instated, hopefully, we can all get on with the business of making this world—and the prison system—a more humane place. And if I'm not mistaken, was it 51 percent of San Franciscans who liked this idea of redemptive justice by voting for Mirkarimi in the first place? Ross getting his job back, with all he has been through, is what I would call poetic justice.

Posted by Daniele E. on Aug. 10, 2012 @ 1:24 pm

Ask which candidates for the D5 seat are seeking his endorsement. Then publicize it.

When you're hot everyone wants to be associated with you. When you're not then you become radioactive and everyone's afraid of being tainted by you. So which is it? Who's actively seeking and intends to publicize their endorsement by our wayward sheriff?

Posted by Troll II on Aug. 09, 2012 @ 1:05 pm

I hear he's actively courting Mirkarimi's endorsement for Top Dog. He's up against a pugnacious little poodle named Tootsie Lee. Needs all the help he can get.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 09, 2012 @ 2:15 pm

and prepping a stand-up comedy act replete with lots of gags on the Holocaust and AIDS. When he's not doing that he and Patrick Monk attend support sessions for men without prostates. Besides, h lives in Jane Kim's district and thus is planning on giving her a real run for her money in 2 years.

Did I tell you how I have a pic of Pat Monk buying Depends in bulk at a South Bay Walmart and using a coupon to do so? I'll post it for a giggle sometime - it's HILAR!

Posted by Troll II on Aug. 09, 2012 @ 4:45 pm

And just in case you cannnot get the help that you *so* desperately need Troll II, then at least make absolutely sure to eat some shit and die.

Posted by lillipublicans© on Aug. 09, 2012 @ 10:02 pm

I'm definitely doing something right :-)

Posted by Troll II on Aug. 09, 2012 @ 10:17 pm

Troll, in fact you are doing *nothing* right. I'll admit it though, you "trolled" me and now I despise you all the more; howbeit with a sense of you being amusing in your off-color depravity.

______________________________________________________________________

lillipublicans©, impostered but never equaled.

http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2012/08/03/supervisors-prepare-receive-mirk...

Posted by lillipublicans© on Aug. 09, 2012 @ 10:38 pm

LOL! Troll II, you have a way with snark.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 10, 2012 @ 8:04 am

Since when is the 500 block of Valencia in District 5? Steven wrote:

Or if you miss it, catch the next one on Tuesday, sponsored by the Harvey Milk Democratic Club, starting at 7pm in the Eric Quezada Center, 518 Valencia Street.

If this info is correct, why is the debate out of D5? Given that the Milk Club is quite a mess these days thanks to their president Airhead Conda, I wouldn't be surprised if she somehow pulled together a debate for Haight district candidates in the Mission.

Posted by MPetrelis on Aug. 09, 2012 @ 8:15 pm

Who cares if she's effective - Milk hasn't been effective in decades anyway so might as well PARTY!

Posted by Troll II on Aug. 09, 2012 @ 9:01 pm

Could it be because the progressive machine (of which the Milk Club is a linchpin) cares less about actual district issues and more about electing ideologically pure supervisors, wherever and whenever?

Posted by Guest on Aug. 10, 2012 @ 8:07 am

"...who didn't answer our calls seeking comment, another troubling trend..."

Because heaven forbid someone not kiss the Guardian's ass in order not to be considered a reactionary in this town.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 10, 2012 @ 8:00 am