Erin Palmer

[Anonymous]

Also, this argument is dumb. Erin Palmer is going to be great and it his nothing to do with her work titles. Mary Cheh is a professor and that's not making her impact any better.

[Anonymous]

I also find her lack of experience a problem. She has not impressed me with any substantial legislating skills. It has nothing to do with her being a woman. I agree with another PP who said there is nothing worse that people on the periphery of an organization who suddenly think they can run it. ANC to council chair - don't think so. I'm not a fan of Mendo but I will be voting for him. At least I know he can stand up to Bowser (when he feels like it).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I was all set to vote for Palmer for Chair but I'm working on my ballot this week and doing lots of reading and have started getting cold feet. I'm frustrated with Mendo and agree the Council needs fresh faces and I like the idea of new leadership. I think my political align pretty well with Palmer and I like her personally -- she has a great attitude and seems easy to work with and I could see that translating to a good leadership style.

But I'm suddenly getting nervous. Council Chair has a lot of power. It's a big job with a ton of logistics. Palmer has a great resume and I'm a huge fan of her advocacy. But she's never been in a role with this many moving parts, this level of logistics. I am stressed about it. ANC can be a challenging job but it's very small compared to Chair. Her day job has always been as more of a team player.

She also has proposals for changing the way the Council works. I don't disagree with her proposals (re-forming the education subcommittee and hiring on more staff to draft and review legislation) but that kind of change can be hard and she has no track record with it -- no track record with building teams (other than her campaign team, which is smaller than typical because she decided to do public funding) or building a program from the ground up. I have done those things and it is really challenging work.

It's hard to imagine voting for Mendo (though I've done it in the past so it's not THAT hard) but I'm just starting to wonder if Palmer's enthusiasm and style can overcome these deficits in experience. Can some of Palmers supporters make the argument in favor? I want to vote for her but I need to get past this reservation.

(please don't accuse me of being a Mendo plant -- I genuinely want to vote for Palmer and want to hear the best argument in her favor on the issue of experience and leadership ability, I have been angry with Mendo since the Council overturned Prop. 77)

Being an effective advocate, as she has been as ANC, requires strong organization and leadership skills. If she has gotten results for her ANC, and it sounds like she has, it’s because she knows how to organize, engage, and be persuasive. In addition, she will have a staff as Council chair, and if she’s smart she’ll hire some experienced hands.

It’s true that this will be a leap for her, but that’s not an argument to keep someone in office who seems completely uninterested in representing and advocating for the people who elected him—in some cases actively working against their expressed interest (e.g. leading the effort to overturn the results of Initiative 77).

He also refuses to engage on development of the RFK site, which is highly time-sensitive given the likely end of Democratic congressional rule after the midterms (more here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/05/31/commanders-stadium-dc-norton-bowser-mendelson/); I’m no Bowser fan, but it seems clear that he’s the hold-up, and that’s absolutely disqualifying given the stakes.

He needs to go, and I’m confident that Erin Palmer is up to the job.

ANC is basically high school student government. She’s going to be absolutely steam rollered by DC interest groups and will as a result focus on only the most inane virtue signaling stuff.

Why are you so invested in undermining her experience? ANC work is real, on-the-ground work on behalf of constituents. In the best case, it’s what people who care about their communities do to make them better and to make government more effective. That’s what she has done. She has gotten results for her constituents, which includes engaging with “special interests.” You really want to make it seem small potatoes and meaningless, and to belittle her. Why?

lol I know what ANC work is. One step above PTA.

Again, belittling. PTA work is real work, too—often done by women and rarely appreciated for what it accomplishes. Now I think I understand why you’re so invested in this attack.

Are you also the person belittling her work as a lawyer and at AU?

Multiple people are pointing out she’s a lightweight. And it has nothing to do with gender.

ANCs are a useless blight on DC governance. Any candidate who claims ANC experience as a qualification for office gets an automatic demerit from me. PTA president would actually be more persuasive come to think about it.

Ummmm. It has everything to do with gender. Haven't heard this critique of Matt Frumin.

I am a woman and I'm one of the people who is worried she does not have the experience to be Chair. I'm not critiquing Matt Frumin because I don't live in Ward 3 and he's not on my ballot. However, I've also noted that I'd feel so much more comfortable voting for Palmer to be a member of the council than Chair. Why is she running for Chair instead of At-Large? I really don't get it.

I am not a fan of Mendo's but before he became chair, he had almost 30 years of experience in DC politics, including over 10 years as an ANC (including holding positions within the committee like treasurer, on top of normal ANC duties), significant experience within DC's Democratic State Committee, plus three years as an At-Large member. I'm not saying every incoming chair has to have that kind of experience (and in fact it might be good to have someone with more experience outside of government for a variety of reasons) but it is very, very hard to take Palmer seriously when you are comparing her to this.

Chair is a big job. It is not enough to simply be passionate and articulate and share my views. It is reasonable to be unsure that Palmer is up for it, and when the question is raised and then waived away by Palmer or her supporters, it does not instill confidence. If she flounders and struggles and gets criticized, will that be waived away too?

If you are unable to acknowledge that gender, in part, is part of the critique of Palmer, it is hard to believe that you share, e.g., Palmer's/Democratic Party views seriously. One suspects you would have chafed at Elissa Silverstein running for chair, too. We take the candidates for who they are. Palmer went to law school and had kids. Mendelson did not go to graduate school and did not have custody of his kid. Different experiences. She's younger, too. Of course she has less overall experience - but every millennial is going to have less experience than every Boomer, particularly white male Boomers. If the answer is we can only trust old white men, I give you Evans and Graham. Mendelson knew Evans was bad for years - and did nothing - because they are close friends. Time for some clean hands to steer the council.

Ok wow, let's get started:

(1) I didn't say gender plays no role in every criticism of Palmer. I said it plays no role in MY concerns about her as chair. I'm sure there are people for whom her gender makes her seem less qualified. But given that I'm a woman with a REMARKABLY similar background to Palmer, I don't think that's it. I have friends from law school who are women who are my age (early 40s) who I think could do the job. They have all actually run stuff before. I also know a number of organizers in DC, also women, with significantly more leadership and organizing experience than Palmer. These comparisons give me plus when I look at her. It is not because I don't think women can do the job. I am evaluating Palmer as an individual. Also: "One suspects you would have chafed at Elissa Silverstein running for chair, too"? What a neat little straw man you have constructed.

(2) I am a die hard progressive who, if you met me, you'd probably respect and like. I've worked a lot in DC on major progressive initiatives, including paid parent leave, domestic violence initiatives, and education. I want a progressive as Chair. I'm glad Palmer has the views she has. But I've also been doing this work long enough to know that simply holding an opinion does not qualify you to get progressive policies enacted. Do you have any idea how many die hard but ineffectual progressives I've worked with over the years? So many. I've also worked with people who got much better at it with time. Palmer strikes me as someone who could be really effective as chair... in 10 years after she has more ANC experience, maybe spearheaded a major initiative, maybe served as an At-Large member for a time. If saying that makes you question my progressive bona fides, then you know NOTHING about policy making. Also, Mendelson has been a pretty progressive chair, which you would understand if you'd been following DC politics for more than 10 minutes. He's been much less effectual in the last few years, but he's not a centrist or conservative democrat.

(3) I went to law school, I have kids. So do most of the women I know. Some have the credentials for work like this, some don't (I personally don't think I am currently qualified to be Council Chair based on my experience). Law school is 3 years, and it's not like Palmer took years off from public advocacy work to have kids. These are not reasons to feel sorry for her or take a chance on someone unqualified. There are LOTS of qualified women with graduate degrees and kids out there. But other than four years on an ANC, she has almost no relevant experience. I think her ethics work is laudable, but it's an advisory role. I might feel differently if I didn't know so many women with the kind of qualifications I'd like to see in this role. I am frustrated that my option here is Palmer, who I like personally but am really unsure about her readiness for the job. That's not a sexist critique, it's a rational and evidence-based one.

(4) Yes, she's young! That's one of the problems. It might be different if she'd been doing different things with her career thus far, but she hasn't. Mendelson was in his late 40s when he joined the Council (as member, not chair)-- he was pretty young too. But he'd been working ANC for nearly two decades. Palmers been doing it for 4 years. See how this works? It's not agist to expect people to work their way up, it's prudent. And it's easy to have clean hands when you haven't been working in politics very long. Mendelson is imperfect, but his hands are actually pretty clean for someone who has been working at that level as long as he has. It's much harder to do that. Which again, is why Palmer's inexperience is very relevant. What is going to happen when she is getting pressed upon by special interests and has to deal with a lot of politicians who DON'T have clean hands? We have no idea, since she has little to no track record.

(5) The option isn't Palmer or Evans/Graham. It's Palmer (young, inexperienced, personable but untested) or Mendo (flawed, maybe getting too tired and old for the job, but with exceptional knowledge of the system and a track record of supporting progressive policies). I'm not saying it's a cut and dried decision. But the idea that Palmer is the clear winner is ridiculous.

Honestly, if these are the arguments her supporters are trotting out to deal with VALID criticisms of her lack of experience, I'm less interested in her than I was before. But okay, go ahead and call me a sexist meanie if it makes you feel better when she loses as a result.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I was all set to vote for Palmer for Chair but I'm working on my ballot this week and doing lots of reading and have started getting cold feet. I'm frustrated with Mendo and agree the Council needs fresh faces and I like the idea of new leadership. I think my political align pretty well with Palmer and I like her personally -- she has a great attitude and seems easy to work with and I could see that translating to a good leadership style.

But I'm suddenly getting nervous. Council Chair has a lot of power. It's a big job with a ton of logistics. Palmer has a great resume and I'm a huge fan of her advocacy. But she's never been in a role with this many moving parts, this level of logistics. I am stressed about it. ANC can be a challenging job but it's very small compared to Chair. Her day job has always been as more of a team player.

She also has proposals for changing the way the Council works. I don't disagree with her proposals (re-forming the education subcommittee and hiring on more staff to draft and review legislation) but that kind of change can be hard and she has no track record with it -- no track record with building teams (other than her campaign team, which is smaller than typical because she decided to do public funding) or building a program from the ground up. I have done those things and it is really challenging work.

It's hard to imagine voting for Mendo (though I've done it in the past so it's not THAT hard) but I'm just starting to wonder if Palmer's enthusiasm and style can overcome these deficits in experience. Can some of Palmers supporters make the argument in favor? I want to vote for her but I need to get past this reservation.

(please don't accuse me of being a Mendo plant -- I genuinely want to vote for Palmer and want to hear the best argument in her favor on the issue of experience and leadership ability, I have been angry with Mendo since the Council overturned Prop. 77)

Being an effective advocate, as she has been as ANC, requires strong organization and leadership skills. If she has gotten results for her ANC, and it sounds like she has, it’s because she knows how to organize, engage, and be persuasive. In addition, she will have a staff as Council chair, and if she’s smart she’ll hire some experienced hands.

It’s true that this will be a leap for her, but that’s not an argument to keep someone in office who seems completely uninterested in representing and advocating for the people who elected him—in some cases actively working against their expressed interest (e.g. leading the effort to overturn the results of Initiative 77).

He also refuses to engage on development of the RFK site, which is highly time-sensitive given the likely end of Democratic congressional rule after the midterms (more here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/05/31/commanders-stadium-dc-norton-bowser-mendelson/); I’m no Bowser fan, but it seems clear that he’s the hold-up, and that’s absolutely disqualifying given the stakes.

He needs to go, and I’m confident that Erin Palmer is up to the job.

ANC is basically high school student government. She’s going to be absolutely steam rollered by DC interest groups and will as a result focus on only the most inane virtue signaling stuff.

Why are you so invested in undermining her experience? ANC work is real, on-the-ground work on behalf of constituents. In the best case, it’s what people who care about their communities do to make them better and to make government more effective. That’s what she has done. She has gotten results for her constituents, which includes engaging with “special interests.” You really want to make it seem small potatoes and meaningless, and to belittle her. Why?

lol I know what ANC work is. One step above PTA.

Again, belittling. PTA work is real work, too—often done by women and rarely appreciated for what it accomplishes. Now I think I understand why you’re so invested in this attack.

Are you also the person belittling her work as a lawyer and at AU?

Multiple people are pointing out she’s a lightweight. And it has nothing to do with gender.

ANCs are a useless blight on DC governance. Any candidate who claims ANC experience as a qualification for office gets an automatic demerit from me. PTA president would actually be more persuasive come to think about it.

Ummmm. It has everything to do with gender. Haven't heard this critique of Matt Frumin.

I am a woman and I'm one of the people who is worried she does not have the experience to be Chair. I'm not critiquing Matt Frumin because I don't live in Ward 3 and he's not on my ballot. However, I've also noted that I'd feel so much more comfortable voting for Palmer to be a member of the council than Chair. Why is she running for Chair instead of At-Large? I really don't get it.

I am not a fan of Mendo's but before he became chair, he had almost 30 years of experience in DC politics, including over 10 years as an ANC (including holding positions within the committee like treasurer, on top of normal ANC duties), significant experience within DC's Democratic State Committee, plus three years as an At-Large member. I'm not saying every incoming chair has to have that kind of experience (and in fact it might be good to have someone with more experience outside of government for a variety of reasons) but it is very, very hard to take Palmer seriously when you are comparing her to this.

Chair is a big job. It is not enough to simply be passionate and articulate and share my views. It is reasonable to be unsure that Palmer is up for it, and when the question is raised and then waived away by Palmer or her supporters, it does not instill confidence. If she flounders and struggles and gets criticized, will that be waived away too?

Have you tried meeting her? There are plenty of opportunities. She is plenty sharp enough to handle it. It's not just what's on a paper resume.

I have met her. She seem smart, personable, and not totally ready for this specific job. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I was all set to vote for Palmer for Chair but I'm working on my ballot this week and doing lots of reading and have started getting cold feet. I'm frustrated with Mendo and agree the Council needs fresh faces and I like the idea of new leadership. I think my political align pretty well with Palmer and I like her personally -- she has a great attitude and seems easy to work with and I could see that translating to a good leadership style.

But I'm suddenly getting nervous. Council Chair has a lot of power. It's a big job with a ton of logistics. Palmer has a great resume and I'm a huge fan of her advocacy. But she's never been in a role with this many moving parts, this level of logistics. I am stressed about it. ANC can be a challenging job but it's very small compared to Chair. Her day job has always been as more of a team player.

She also has proposals for changing the way the Council works. I don't disagree with her proposals (re-forming the education subcommittee and hiring on more staff to draft and review legislation) but that kind of change can be hard and she has no track record with it -- no track record with building teams (other than her campaign team, which is smaller than typical because she decided to do public funding) or building a program from the ground up. I have done those things and it is really challenging work.

It's hard to imagine voting for Mendo (though I've done it in the past so it's not THAT hard) but I'm just starting to wonder if Palmer's enthusiasm and style can overcome these deficits in experience. Can some of Palmers supporters make the argument in favor? I want to vote for her but I need to get past this reservation.

(please don't accuse me of being a Mendo plant -- I genuinely want to vote for Palmer and want to hear the best argument in her favor on the issue of experience and leadership ability, I have been angry with Mendo since the Council overturned Prop. 77)

Being an effective advocate, as she has been as ANC, requires strong organization and leadership skills. If she has gotten results for her ANC, and it sounds like she has, it’s because she knows how to organize, engage, and be persuasive. In addition, she will have a staff as Council chair, and if she’s smart she’ll hire some experienced hands.

It’s true that this will be a leap for her, but that’s not an argument to keep someone in office who seems completely uninterested in representing and advocating for the people who elected him—in some cases actively working against their expressed interest (e.g. leading the effort to overturn the results of Initiative 77).

He also refuses to engage on development of the RFK site, which is highly time-sensitive given the likely end of Democratic congressional rule after the midterms (more here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/05/31/commanders-stadium-dc-norton-bowser-mendelson/); I’m no Bowser fan, but it seems clear that he’s the hold-up, and that’s absolutely disqualifying given the stakes.

He needs to go, and I’m confident that Erin Palmer is up to the job.

ANC is basically high school student government. She’s going to be absolutely steam rollered by DC interest groups and will as a result focus on only the most inane virtue signaling stuff.

Why are you so invested in undermining her experience? ANC work is real, on-the-ground work on behalf of constituents. In the best case, it’s what people who care about their communities do to make them better and to make government more effective. That’s what she has done. She has gotten results for her constituents, which includes engaging with “special interests.” You really want to make it seem small potatoes and meaningless, and to belittle her. Why?

lol I know what ANC work is. One step above PTA.

Again, belittling. PTA work is real work, too—often done by women and rarely appreciated for what it accomplishes. Now I think I understand why you’re so invested in this attack.

Are you also the person belittling her work as a lawyer and at AU?

Multiple people are pointing out she’s a lightweight. And it has nothing to do with gender.

ANCs are a useless blight on DC governance. Any candidate who claims ANC experience as a qualification for office gets an automatic demerit from me. PTA president would actually be more persuasive come to think about it.

Ummmm. It has everything to do with gender. Haven't heard this critique of Matt Frumin.

I am a woman and I'm one of the people who is worried she does not have the experience to be Chair. I'm not critiquing Matt Frumin because I don't live in Ward 3 and he's not on my ballot. However, I've also noted that I'd feel so much more comfortable voting for Palmer to be a member of the council than Chair. Why is she running for Chair instead of At-Large? I really don't get it.

I am not a fan of Mendo's but before he became chair, he had almost 30 years of experience in DC politics, including over 10 years as an ANC (including holding positions within the committee like treasurer, on top of normal ANC duties), significant experience within DC's Democratic State Committee, plus three years as an At-Large member. I'm not saying every incoming chair has to have that kind of experience (and in fact it might be good to have someone with more experience outside of government for a variety of reasons) but it is very, very hard to take Palmer seriously when you are comparing her to this.

Chair is a big job. It is not enough to simply be passionate and articulate and share my views. It is reasonable to be unsure that Palmer is up for it, and when the question is raised and then waived away by Palmer or her supporters, it does not instill confidence. If she flounders and struggles and gets criticized, will that be waived away too?

If you are unable to acknowledge that gender, in part, is part of the critique of Palmer, it is hard to believe that you share, e.g., Palmer's/Democratic Party views seriously. One suspects you would have chafed at Elissa Silverstein running for chair, too. We take the candidates for who they are. Palmer went to law school and had kids. Mendelson did not go to graduate school and did not have custody of his kid. Different experiences. She's younger, too. Of course she has less overall experience - but every millennial is going to have less experience than every Boomer, particularly white male Boomers. If the answer is we can only trust old white men, I give you Evans and Graham. Mendelson knew Evans was bad for years - and did nothing - because they are close friends. Time for some clean hands to steer the council.

Ok wow, let's get started:

(1) I didn't say gender plays no role in every criticism of Palmer. I said it plays no role in MY concerns about her as chair. I'm sure there are people for whom her gender makes her seem less qualified. But given that I'm a woman with a REMARKABLY similar background to Palmer, I don't think that's it. I have friends from law school who are women who are my age (early 40s) who I think could do the job. They have all actually run stuff before. I also know a number of organizers in DC, also women, with significantly more leadership and organizing experience than Palmer. These comparisons give me plus when I look at her. It is not because I don't think women can do the job. I am evaluating Palmer as an individual. Also: "One suspects you would have chafed at Elissa Silverstein running for chair, too"? What a neat little straw man you have constructed.

(2) I am a die hard progressive who, if you met me, you'd probably respect and like. I've worked a lot in DC on major progressive initiatives, including paid parent leave, domestic violence initiatives, and education. I want a progressive as Chair. I'm glad Palmer has the views she has. But I've also been doing this work long enough to know that simply holding an opinion does not qualify you to get progressive policies enacted. Do you have any idea how many die hard but ineffectual progressives I've worked with over the years? So many. I've also worked with people who got much better at it with time. Palmer strikes me as someone who could be really effective as chair... in 10 years after she has more ANC experience, maybe spearheaded a major initiative, maybe served as an At-Large member for a time. If saying that makes you question my progressive bona fides, then you know NOTHING about policy making. Also, Mendelson has been a pretty progressive chair, which you would understand if you'd been following DC politics for more than 10 minutes. He's been much less effectual in the last few years, but he's not a centrist or conservative democrat.

(3) I went to law school, I have kids. So do most of the women I know. Some have the credentials for work like this, some don't (I personally don't think I am currently qualified to be Council Chair based on my experience). Law school is 3 years, and it's not like Palmer took years off from public advocacy work to have kids. These are not reasons to feel sorry for her or take a chance on someone unqualified. There are LOTS of qualified women with graduate degrees and kids out there. But other than four years on an ANC, she has almost no relevant experience. I think her ethics work is laudable, but it's an advisory role. I might feel differently if I didn't know so many women with the kind of qualifications I'd like to see in this role. I am frustrated that my option here is Palmer, who I like personally but am really unsure about her readiness for the job. That's not a sexist critique, it's a rational and evidence-based one.

(4) Yes, she's young! That's one of the problems. It might be different if she'd been doing different things with her career thus far, but she hasn't. Mendelson was in his late 40s when he joined the Council (as member, not chair)-- he was pretty young too. But he'd been working ANC for nearly two decades. Palmers been doing it for 4 years. See how this works? It's not agist to expect people to work their way up, it's prudent. And it's easy to have clean hands when you haven't been working in politics very long. Mendelson is imperfect, but his hands are actually pretty clean for someone who has been working at that level as long as he has. It's much harder to do that. Which again, is why Palmer's inexperience is very relevant. What is going to happen when she is getting pressed upon by special interests and has to deal with a lot of politicians who DON'T have clean hands? We have no idea, since she has little to no track record.

(5) The option isn't Palmer or Evans/Graham. It's Palmer (young, inexperienced, personable but untested) or Mendo (flawed, maybe getting too tired and old for the job, but with exceptional knowledge of the system and a track record of supporting progressive policies). I'm not saying it's a cut and dried decision. But the idea that Palmer is the clear winner is ridiculous.

Honestly, if these are the arguments her supporters are trotting out to deal with VALID criticisms of her lack of experience, I'm less interested in her than I was before. But okay, go ahead and call me a sexist meanie if it makes you feel better when she loses as a result.

Mendo has a clear track record of hindering and watering down progressive policies then claiming credit for them over his objections. He uses progressive language but drags his feet on meaningful change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I was all set to vote for Palmer for Chair but I'm working on my ballot this week and doing lots of reading and have started getting cold feet. I'm frustrated with Mendo and agree the Council needs fresh faces and I like the idea of new leadership. I think my political align pretty well with Palmer and I like her personally -- she has a great attitude and seems easy to work with and I could see that translating to a good leadership style.

But I'm suddenly getting nervous. Council Chair has a lot of power. It's a big job with a ton of logistics. Palmer has a great resume and I'm a huge fan of her advocacy. But she's never been in a role with this many moving parts, this level of logistics. I am stressed about it. ANC can be a challenging job but it's very small compared to Chair. Her day job has always been as more of a team player.

She also has proposals for changing the way the Council works. I don't disagree with her proposals (re-forming the education subcommittee and hiring on more staff to draft and review legislation) but that kind of change can be hard and she has no track record with it -- no track record with building teams (other than her campaign team, which is smaller than typical because she decided to do public funding) or building a program from the ground up. I have done those things and it is really challenging work.

It's hard to imagine voting for Mendo (though I've done it in the past so it's not THAT hard) but I'm just starting to wonder if Palmer's enthusiasm and style can overcome these deficits in experience. Can some of Palmers supporters make the argument in favor? I want to vote for her but I need to get past this reservation.

(please don't accuse me of being a Mendo plant -- I genuinely want to vote for Palmer and want to hear the best argument in her favor on the issue of experience and leadership ability, I have been angry with Mendo since the Council overturned Prop. 77)

Being an effective advocate, as she has been as ANC, requires strong organization and leadership skills. If she has gotten results for her ANC, and it sounds like she has, it’s because she knows how to organize, engage, and be persuasive. In addition, she will have a staff as Council chair, and if she’s smart she’ll hire some experienced hands.

It’s true that this will be a leap for her, but that’s not an argument to keep someone in office who seems completely uninterested in representing and advocating for the people who elected him—in some cases actively working against their expressed interest (e.g. leading the effort to overturn the results of Initiative 77).

He also refuses to engage on development of the RFK site, which is highly time-sensitive given the likely end of Democratic congressional rule after the midterms (more here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/05/31/commanders-stadium-dc-norton-bowser-mendelson/); I’m no Bowser fan, but it seems clear that he’s the hold-up, and that’s absolutely disqualifying given the stakes.

He needs to go, and I’m confident that Erin Palmer is up to the job.

ANC is basically high school student government. She’s going to be absolutely steam rollered by DC interest groups and will as a result focus on only the most inane virtue signaling stuff.

Why are you so invested in undermining her experience? ANC work is real, on-the-ground work on behalf of constituents. In the best case, it’s what people who care about their communities do to make them better and to make government more effective. That’s what she has done. She has gotten results for her constituents, which includes engaging with “special interests.” You really want to make it seem small potatoes and meaningless, and to belittle her. Why?

lol I know what ANC work is. One step above PTA.

Again, belittling. PTA work is real work, too—often done by women and rarely appreciated for what it accomplishes. Now I think I understand why you’re so invested in this attack.

Are you also the person belittling her work as a lawyer and at AU?

Multiple people are pointing out she’s a lightweight. And it has nothing to do with gender.

ANCs are a useless blight on DC governance. Any candidate who claims ANC experience as a qualification for office gets an automatic demerit from me. PTA president would actually be more persuasive come to think about it.

Ummmm. It has everything to do with gender. Haven't heard this critique of Matt Frumin.

I am a woman and I'm one of the people who is worried she does not have the experience to be Chair. I'm not critiquing Matt Frumin because I don't live in Ward 3 and he's not on my ballot. However, I've also noted that I'd feel so much more comfortable voting for Palmer to be a member of the council than Chair. Why is she running for Chair instead of At-Large? I really don't get it.

I am not a fan of Mendo's but before he became chair, he had almost 30 years of experience in DC politics, including over 10 years as an ANC (including holding positions within the committee like treasurer, on top of normal ANC duties), significant experience within DC's Democratic State Committee, plus three years as an At-Large member. I'm not saying every incoming chair has to have that kind of experience (and in fact it might be good to have someone with more experience outside of government for a variety of reasons) but it is very, very hard to take Palmer seriously when you are comparing her to this.

Chair is a big job. It is not enough to simply be passionate and articulate and share my views. It is reasonable to be unsure that Palmer is up for it, and when the question is raised and then waived away by Palmer or her supporters, it does not instill confidence. If she flounders and struggles and gets criticized, will that be waived away too?

If you are unable to acknowledge that gender, in part, is part of the critique of Palmer, it is hard to believe that you share, e.g., Palmer's/Democratic Party views seriously. One suspects you would have chafed at Elissa Silverstein running for chair, too. We take the candidates for who they are. Palmer went to law school and had kids. Mendelson did not go to graduate school and did not have custody of his kid. Different experiences. She's younger, too. Of course she has less overall experience - but every millennial is going to have less experience than every Boomer, particularly white male Boomers. If the answer is we can only trust old white men, I give you Evans and Graham. Mendelson knew Evans was bad for years - and did nothing - because they are close friends. Time for some clean hands to steer the council.

Ok wow, let's get started:

(1) I didn't say gender plays no role in every criticism of Palmer. I said it plays no role in MY concerns about her as chair. I'm sure there are people for whom her gender makes her seem less qualified. But given that I'm a woman with a REMARKABLY similar background to Palmer, I don't think that's it. I have friends from law school who are women who are my age (early 40s) who I think could do the job. They have all actually run stuff before. I also know a number of organizers in DC, also women, with significantly more leadership and organizing experience than Palmer. These comparisons give me plus when I look at her. It is not because I don't think women can do the job. I am evaluating Palmer as an individual. Also: "One suspects you would have chafed at Elissa Silverstein running for chair, too"? What a neat little straw man you have constructed.

(2) I am a die hard progressive who, if you met me, you'd probably respect and like. I've worked a lot in DC on major progressive initiatives, including paid parent leave, domestic violence initiatives, and education. I want a progressive as Chair. I'm glad Palmer has the views she has. But I've also been doing this work long enough to know that simply holding an opinion does not qualify you to get progressive policies enacted. Do you have any idea how many die hard but ineffectual progressives I've worked with over the years? So many. I've also worked with people who got much better at it with time. Palmer strikes me as someone who could be really effective as chair... in 10 years after she has more ANC experience, maybe spearheaded a major initiative, maybe served as an At-Large member for a time. If saying that makes you question my progressive bona fides, then you know NOTHING about policy making. Also, Mendelson has been a pretty progressive chair, which you would understand if you'd been following DC politics for more than 10 minutes. He's been much less effectual in the last few years, but he's not a centrist or conservative democrat.

(3) I went to law school, I have kids. So do most of the women I know. Some have the credentials for work like this, some don't (I personally don't think I am currently qualified to be Council Chair based on my experience). Law school is 3 years, and it's not like Palmer took years off from public advocacy work to have kids. These are not reasons to feel sorry for her or take a chance on someone unqualified. There are LOTS of qualified women with graduate degrees and kids out there. But other than four years on an ANC, she has almost no relevant experience. I think her ethics work is laudable, but it's an advisory role. I might feel differently if I didn't know so many women with the kind of qualifications I'd like to see in this role. I am frustrated that my option here is Palmer, who I like personally but am really unsure about her readiness for the job. That's not a sexist critique, it's a rational and evidence-based one.

(4) Yes, she's young! That's one of the problems. It might be different if she'd been doing different things with her career thus far, but she hasn't. Mendelson was in his late 40s when he joined the Council (as member, not chair)-- he was pretty young too. But he'd been working ANC for nearly two decades. Palmers been doing it for 4 years. See how this works? It's not agist to expect people to work their way up, it's prudent. And it's easy to have clean hands when you haven't been working in politics very long. Mendelson is imperfect, but his hands are actually pretty clean for someone who has been working at that level as long as he has. It's much harder to do that. Which again, is why Palmer's inexperience is very relevant. What is going to happen when she is getting pressed upon by special interests and has to deal with a lot of politicians who DON'T have clean hands? We have no idea, since she has little to no track record.

(5) The option isn't Palmer or Evans/Graham. It's Palmer (young, inexperienced, personable but untested) or Mendo (flawed, maybe getting too tired and old for the job, but with exceptional knowledge of the system and a track record of supporting progressive policies). I'm not saying it's a cut and dried decision. But the idea that Palmer is the clear winner is ridiculous.

Honestly, if these are the arguments her supporters are trotting out to deal with VALID criticisms of her lack of experience, I'm less interested in her than I was before. But okay, go ahead and call me a sexist meanie if it makes you feel better when she loses as a result.

Mendo has a clear track record of hindering and watering down progressive policies then claiming credit for them over his objections. He uses progressive language but drags his feet on meaningful change.

Sorry but with the way things are going in this city, I'm not sure that's a bad thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I was all set to vote for Palmer for Chair but I'm working on my ballot this week and doing lots of reading and have started getting cold feet. I'm frustrated with Mendo and agree the Council needs fresh faces and I like the idea of new leadership. I think my political align pretty well with Palmer and I like her personally -- she has a great attitude and seems easy to work with and I could see that translating to a good leadership style.

But I'm suddenly getting nervous. Council Chair has a lot of power. It's a big job with a ton of logistics. Palmer has a great resume and I'm a huge fan of her advocacy. But she's never been in a role with this many moving parts, this level of logistics. I am stressed about it. ANC can be a challenging job but it's very small compared to Chair. Her day job has always been as more of a team player.

She also has proposals for changing the way the Council works. I don't disagree with her proposals (re-forming the education subcommittee and hiring on more staff to draft and review legislation) but that kind of change can be hard and she has no track record with it -- no track record with building teams (other than her campaign team, which is smaller than typical because she decided to do public funding) or building a program from the ground up. I have done those things and it is really challenging work.

It's hard to imagine voting for Mendo (though I've done it in the past so it's not THAT hard) but I'm just starting to wonder if Palmer's enthusiasm and style can overcome these deficits in experience. Can some of Palmers supporters make the argument in favor? I want to vote for her but I need to get past this reservation.

(please don't accuse me of being a Mendo plant -- I genuinely want to vote for Palmer and want to hear the best argument in her favor on the issue of experience and leadership ability, I have been angry with Mendo since the Council overturned Prop. 77)

Being an effective advocate, as she has been as ANC, requires strong organization and leadership skills. If she has gotten results for her ANC, and it sounds like she has, it’s because she knows how to organize, engage, and be persuasive. In addition, she will have a staff as Council chair, and if she’s smart she’ll hire some experienced hands.

It’s true that this will be a leap for her, but that’s not an argument to keep someone in office who seems completely uninterested in representing and advocating for the people who elected him—in some cases actively working against their expressed interest (e.g. leading the effort to overturn the results of Initiative 77).

He also refuses to engage on development of the RFK site, which is highly time-sensitive given the likely end of Democratic congressional rule after the midterms (more here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/05/31/commanders-stadium-dc-norton-bowser-mendelson/); I’m no Bowser fan, but it seems clear that he’s the hold-up, and that’s absolutely disqualifying given the stakes.

He needs to go, and I’m confident that Erin Palmer is up to the job.

ANC is basically high school student government. She’s going to be absolutely steam rollered by DC interest groups and will as a result focus on only the most inane virtue signaling stuff.

Why are you so invested in undermining her experience? ANC work is real, on-the-ground work on behalf of constituents. In the best case, it’s what people who care about their communities do to make them better and to make government more effective. That’s what she has done. She has gotten results for her constituents, which includes engaging with “special interests.” You really want to make it seem small potatoes and meaningless, and to belittle her. Why?

lol I know what ANC work is. One step above PTA.

Again, belittling. PTA work is real work, too—often done by women and rarely appreciated for what it accomplishes. Now I think I understand why you’re so invested in this attack.

Are you also the person belittling her work as a lawyer and at AU?

Multiple people are pointing out she’s a lightweight. And it has nothing to do with gender.

ANCs are a useless blight on DC governance. Any candidate who claims ANC experience as a qualification for office gets an automatic demerit from me. PTA president would actually be more persuasive come to think about it.

Ummmm. It has everything to do with gender. Haven't heard this critique of Matt Frumin.

I am a woman and I'm one of the people who is worried she does not have the experience to be Chair. I'm not critiquing Matt Frumin because I don't live in Ward 3 and he's not on my ballot. However, I've also noted that I'd feel so much more comfortable voting for Palmer to be a member of the council than Chair. Why is she running for Chair instead of At-Large? I really don't get it.

I am not a fan of Mendo's but before he became chair, he had almost 30 years of experience in DC politics, including over 10 years as an ANC (including holding positions within the committee like treasurer, on top of normal ANC duties), significant experience within DC's Democratic State Committee, plus three years as an At-Large member. I'm not saying every incoming chair has to have that kind of experience (and in fact it might be good to have someone with more experience outside of government for a variety of reasons) but it is very, very hard to take Palmer seriously when you are comparing her to this.

Chair is a big job. It is not enough to simply be passionate and articulate and share my views. It is reasonable to be unsure that Palmer is up for it, and when the question is raised and then waived away by Palmer or her supporters, it does not instill confidence. If she flounders and struggles and gets criticized, will that be waived away too?

If you are unable to acknowledge that gender, in part, is part of the critique of Palmer, it is hard to believe that you share, e.g., Palmer's/Democratic Party views seriously. One suspects you would have chafed at Elissa Silverstein running for chair, too. We take the candidates for who they are. Palmer went to law school and had kids. Mendelson did not go to graduate school and did not have custody of his kid. Different experiences. She's younger, too. Of course she has less overall experience - but every millennial is going to have less experience than every Boomer, particularly white male Boomers. If the answer is we can only trust old white men, I give you Evans and Graham. Mendelson knew Evans was bad for years - and did nothing - because they are close friends. Time for some clean hands to steer the council.

Ok wow, let's get started:

(1) I didn't say gender plays no role in every criticism of Palmer. I said it plays no role in MY concerns about her as chair. I'm sure there are people for whom her gender makes her seem less qualified. But given that I'm a woman with a REMARKABLY similar background to Palmer, I don't think that's it. I have friends from law school who are women who are my age (early 40s) who I think could do the job. They have all actually run stuff before. I also know a number of organizers in DC, also women, with significantly more leadership and organizing experience than Palmer. These comparisons give me plus when I look at her. It is not because I don't think women can do the job. I am evaluating Palmer as an individual. Also: "One suspects you would have chafed at Elissa Silverstein running for chair, too"? What a neat little straw man you have constructed.

(2) I am a die hard progressive who, if you met me, you'd probably respect and like. I've worked a lot in DC on major progressive initiatives, including paid parent leave, domestic violence initiatives, and education. I want a progressive as Chair. I'm glad Palmer has the views she has. But I've also been doing this work long enough to know that simply holding an opinion does not qualify you to get progressive policies enacted. Do you have any idea how many die hard but ineffectual progressives I've worked with over the years? So many. I've also worked with people who got much better at it with time. Palmer strikes me as someone who could be really effective as chair... in 10 years after she has more ANC experience, maybe spearheaded a major initiative, maybe served as an At-Large member for a time. If saying that makes you question my progressive bona fides, then you know NOTHING about policy making. Also, Mendelson has been a pretty progressive chair, which you would understand if you'd been following DC politics for more than 10 minutes. He's been much less effectual in the last few years, but he's not a centrist or conservative democrat.

(3) I went to law school, I have kids. So do most of the women I know. Some have the credentials for work like this, some don't (I personally don't think I am currently qualified to be Council Chair based on my experience). Law school is 3 years, and it's not like Palmer took years off from public advocacy work to have kids. These are not reasons to feel sorry for her or take a chance on someone unqualified. There are LOTS of qualified women with graduate degrees and kids out there. But other than four years on an ANC, she has almost no relevant experience. I think her ethics work is laudable, but it's an advisory role. I might feel differently if I didn't know so many women with the kind of qualifications I'd like to see in this role. I am frustrated that my option here is Palmer, who I like personally but am really unsure about her readiness for the job. That's not a sexist critique, it's a rational and evidence-based one.

(4) Yes, she's young! That's one of the problems. It might be different if she'd been doing different things with her career thus far, but she hasn't. Mendelson was in his late 40s when he joined the Council (as member, not chair)-- he was pretty young too. But he'd been working ANC for nearly two decades. Palmers been doing it for 4 years. See how this works? It's not agist to expect people to work their way up, it's prudent. And it's easy to have clean hands when you haven't been working in politics very long. Mendelson is imperfect, but his hands are actually pretty clean for someone who has been working at that level as long as he has. It's much harder to do that. Which again, is why Palmer's inexperience is very relevant. What is going to happen when she is getting pressed upon by special interests and has to deal with a lot of politicians who DON'T have clean hands? We have no idea, since she has little to no track record.

(5) The option isn't Palmer or Evans/Graham. It's Palmer (young, inexperienced, personable but untested) or Mendo (flawed, maybe getting too tired and old for the job, but with exceptional knowledge of the system and a track record of supporting progressive policies). I'm not saying it's a cut and dried decision. But the idea that Palmer is the clear winner is ridiculous.

Honestly, if these are the arguments her supporters are trotting out to deal with VALID criticisms of her lack of experience, I'm less interested in her than I was before. But okay, go ahead and call me a sexist meanie if it makes you feel better when she loses as a result.

Mendo has a clear track record of hindering and watering down progressive policies then claiming credit for them over his objections. He uses progressive language but drags his feet on meaningful change.

Sorry but with the way things are going in this city, I'm not sure that's a bad thing.

Yeah, the status quo is awesome

[Anonymous]

I think Erin Palmer should have run for at-large first. I like her. I like her politics. But she has basically no experience running anything and the Council will eat her alive. Hopefully she regroups after she loses and runs for at-large next time around.

[Anonymous]

Hopefully she kicks ass in the primary and has a great transition into office. Sharp mind and hard work plus professional staff will be just fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think Erin Palmer should have run for at-large first. I like her. I like her politics. But she has basically no experience running anything and the Council will eat her alive. Hopefully she regroups after she loses and runs for at-large next time around.

Seriously, why didn't she run for Bonds's seat? An eminently more vulnerable target.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I was all set to vote for Palmer for Chair but I'm working on my ballot this week and doing lots of reading and have started getting cold feet. I'm frustrated with Mendo and agree the Council needs fresh faces and I like the idea of new leadership. I think my political align pretty well with Palmer and I like her personally -- she has a great attitude and seems easy to work with and I could see that translating to a good leadership style.

But I'm suddenly getting nervous. Council Chair has a lot of power. It's a big job with a ton of logistics. Palmer has a great resume and I'm a huge fan of her advocacy. But she's never been in a role with this many moving parts, this level of logistics. I am stressed about it. ANC can be a challenging job but it's very small compared to Chair. Her day job has always been as more of a team player.

She also has proposals for changing the way the Council works. I don't disagree with her proposals (re-forming the education subcommittee and hiring on more staff to draft and review legislation) but that kind of change can be hard and she has no track record with it -- no track record with building teams (other than her campaign team, which is smaller than typical because she decided to do public funding) or building a program from the ground up. I have done those things and it is really challenging work.

It's hard to imagine voting for Mendo (though I've done it in the past so it's not THAT hard) but I'm just starting to wonder if Palmer's enthusiasm and style can overcome these deficits in experience. Can some of Palmers supporters make the argument in favor? I want to vote for her but I need to get past this reservation.

(please don't accuse me of being a Mendo plant -- I genuinely want to vote for Palmer and want to hear the best argument in her favor on the issue of experience and leadership ability, I have been angry with Mendo since the Council overturned Prop. 77)

Being an effective advocate, as she has been as ANC, requires strong organization and leadership skills. If she has gotten results for her ANC, and it sounds like she has, it’s because she knows how to organize, engage, and be persuasive. In addition, she will have a staff as Council chair, and if she’s smart she’ll hire some experienced hands.

It’s true that this will be a leap for her, but that’s not an argument to keep someone in office who seems completely uninterested in representing and advocating for the people who elected him—in some cases actively working against their expressed interest (e.g. leading the effort to overturn the results of Initiative 77).

He also refuses to engage on development of the RFK site, which is highly time-sensitive given the likely end of Democratic congressional rule after the midterms (more here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/05/31/commanders-stadium-dc-norton-bowser-mendelson/); I’m no Bowser fan, but it seems clear that he’s the hold-up, and that’s absolutely disqualifying given the stakes.

He needs to go, and I’m confident that Erin Palmer is up to the job.

ANC is basically high school student government. She’s going to be absolutely steam rollered by DC interest groups and will as a result focus on only the most inane virtue signaling stuff.

Why are you so invested in undermining her experience? ANC work is real, on-the-ground work on behalf of constituents. In the best case, it’s what people who care about their communities do to make them better and to make government more effective. That’s what she has done. She has gotten results for her constituents, which includes engaging with “special interests.” You really want to make it seem small potatoes and meaningless, and to belittle her. Why?

lol I know what ANC work is. One step above PTA.

Again, belittling. PTA work is real work, too—often done by women and rarely appreciated for what it accomplishes. Now I think I understand why you’re so invested in this attack.

Are you also the person belittling her work as a lawyer and at AU?

Multiple people are pointing out she’s a lightweight. And it has nothing to do with gender.

ANCs are a useless blight on DC governance. Any candidate who claims ANC experience as a qualification for office gets an automatic demerit from me. PTA president would actually be more persuasive come to think about it.

Ummmm. It has everything to do with gender. Haven't heard this critique of Matt Frumin.

I am a woman and I'm one of the people who is worried she does not have the experience to be Chair. I'm not critiquing Matt Frumin because I don't live in Ward 3 and he's not on my ballot. However, I've also noted that I'd feel so much more comfortable voting for Palmer to be a member of the council than Chair. Why is she running for Chair instead of At-Large? I really don't get it.

I am not a fan of Mendo's but before he became chair, he had almost 30 years of experience in DC politics, including over 10 years as an ANC (including holding positions within the committee like treasurer, on top of normal ANC duties), significant experience within DC's Democratic State Committee, plus three years as an At-Large member. I'm not saying every incoming chair has to have that kind of experience (and in fact it might be good to have someone with more experience outside of government for a variety of reasons) but it is very, very hard to take Palmer seriously when you are comparing her to this.

Chair is a big job. It is not enough to simply be passionate and articulate and share my views. It is reasonable to be unsure that Palmer is up for it, and when the question is raised and then waived away by Palmer or her supporters, it does not instill confidence. If she flounders and struggles and gets criticized, will that be waived away too?

If you are unable to acknowledge that gender, in part, is part of the critique of Palmer, it is hard to believe that you share, e.g., Palmer's/Democratic Party views seriously. One suspects you would have chafed at Elissa Silverstein running for chair, too. We take the candidates for who they are. Palmer went to law school and had kids. Mendelson did not go to graduate school and did not have custody of his kid. Different experiences. She's younger, too. Of course she has less overall experience - but every millennial is going to have less experience than every Boomer, particularly white male Boomers. If the answer is we can only trust old white men, I give you Evans and Graham. Mendelson knew Evans was bad for years - and did nothing - because they are close friends. Time for some clean hands to steer the council.

Ok wow, let's get started:

(1) I didn't say gender plays no role in every criticism of Palmer. I said it plays no role in MY concerns about her as chair. I'm sure there are people for whom her gender makes her seem less qualified. But given that I'm a woman with a REMARKABLY similar background to Palmer, I don't think that's it. I have friends from law school who are women who are my age (early 40s) who I think could do the job. They have all actually run stuff before. I also know a number of organizers in DC, also women, with significantly more leadership and organizing experience than Palmer. These comparisons give me plus when I look at her. It is not because I don't think women can do the job. I am evaluating Palmer as an individual. Also: "One suspects you would have chafed at Elissa Silverstein running for chair, too"? What a neat little straw man you have constructed.

(2) I am a die hard progressive who, if you met me, you'd probably respect and like. I've worked a lot in DC on major progressive initiatives, including paid parent leave, domestic violence initiatives, and education. I want a progressive as Chair. I'm glad Palmer has the views she has. But I've also been doing this work long enough to know that simply holding an opinion does not qualify you to get progressive policies enacted. Do you have any idea how many die hard but ineffectual progressives I've worked with over the years? So many. I've also worked with people who got much better at it with time. Palmer strikes me as someone who could be really effective as chair... in 10 years after she has more ANC experience, maybe spearheaded a major initiative, maybe served as an At-Large member for a time. If saying that makes you question my progressive bona fides, then you know NOTHING about policy making. Also, Mendelson has been a pretty progressive chair, which you would understand if you'd been following DC politics for more than 10 minutes. He's been much less effectual in the last few years, but he's not a centrist or conservative democrat.

(3) I went to law school, I have kids. So do most of the women I know. Some have the credentials for work like this, some don't (I personally don't think I am currently qualified to be Council Chair based on my experience). Law school is 3 years, and it's not like Palmer took years off from public advocacy work to have kids. These are not reasons to feel sorry for her or take a chance on someone unqualified. There are LOTS of qualified women with graduate degrees and kids out there. But other than four years on an ANC, she has almost no relevant experience. I think her ethics work is laudable, but it's an advisory role. I might feel differently if I didn't know so many women with the kind of qualifications I'd like to see in this role. I am frustrated that my option here is Palmer, who I like personally but am really unsure about her readiness for the job. That's not a sexist critique, it's a rational and evidence-based one.

(4) Yes, she's young! That's one of the problems. It might be different if she'd been doing different things with her career thus far, but she hasn't. Mendelson was in his late 40s when he joined the Council (as member, not chair)-- he was pretty young too. But he'd been working ANC for nearly two decades. Palmers been doing it for 4 years. See how this works? It's not agist to expect people to work their way up, it's prudent. And it's easy to have clean hands when you haven't been working in politics very long. Mendelson is imperfect, but his hands are actually pretty clean for someone who has been working at that level as long as he has. It's much harder to do that. Which again, is why Palmer's inexperience is very relevant. What is going to happen when she is getting pressed upon by special interests and has to deal with a lot of politicians who DON'T have clean hands? We have no idea, since she has little to no track record.

(5) The option isn't Palmer or Evans/Graham. It's Palmer (young, inexperienced, personable but untested) or Mendo (flawed, maybe getting too tired and old for the job, but with exceptional knowledge of the system and a track record of supporting progressive policies). I'm not saying it's a cut and dried decision. But the idea that Palmer is the clear winner is ridiculous.

Honestly, if these are the arguments her supporters are trotting out to deal with VALID criticisms of her lack of experience, I'm less interested in her than I was before. But okay, go ahead and call me a sexist meanie if it makes you feel better when she loses as a result.

Mendo has a clear track record of hindering and watering down progressive policies then claiming credit for them over his objections. He uses progressive language but drags his feet on meaningful change.

Sorry but with the way things are going in this city, I'm not sure that's a bad thing.

sad to say I agree. where is our energetic centrist? personally I think she’s already there (Christina Henderson).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I was all set to vote for Palmer for Chair but I'm working on my ballot this week and doing lots of reading and have started getting cold feet. I'm frustrated with Mendo and agree the Council needs fresh faces and I like the idea of new leadership. I think my political align pretty well with Palmer and I like her personally -- she has a great attitude and seems easy to work with and I could see that translating to a good leadership style.

But I'm suddenly getting nervous. Council Chair has a lot of power. It's a big job with a ton of logistics. Palmer has a great resume and I'm a huge fan of her advocacy. But she's never been in a role with this many moving parts, this level of logistics. I am stressed about it. ANC can be a challenging job but it's very small compared to Chair. Her day job has always been as more of a team player.

She also has proposals for changing the way the Council works. I don't disagree with her proposals (re-forming the education subcommittee and hiring on more staff to draft and review legislation) but that kind of change can be hard and she has no track record with it -- no track record with building teams (other than her campaign team, which is smaller than typical because she decided to do public funding) or building a program from the ground up. I have done those things and it is really challenging work.

It's hard to imagine voting for Mendo (though I've done it in the past so it's not THAT hard) but I'm just starting to wonder if Palmer's enthusiasm and style can overcome these deficits in experience. Can some of Palmers supporters make the argument in favor? I want to vote for her but I need to get past this reservation.

(please don't accuse me of being a Mendo plant -- I genuinely want to vote for Palmer and want to hear the best argument in her favor on the issue of experience and leadership ability, I have been angry with Mendo since the Council overturned Prop. 77)

Being an effective advocate, as she has been as ANC, requires strong organization and leadership skills. If she has gotten results for her ANC, and it sounds like she has, it’s because she knows how to organize, engage, and be persuasive. In addition, she will have a staff as Council chair, and if she’s smart she’ll hire some experienced hands.

It’s true that this will be a leap for her, but that’s not an argument to keep someone in office who seems completely uninterested in representing and advocating for the people who elected him—in some cases actively working against their expressed interest (e.g. leading the effort to overturn the results of Initiative 77).

He also refuses to engage on development of the RFK site, which is highly time-sensitive given the likely end of Democratic congressional rule after the midterms (more here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/05/31/commanders-stadium-dc-norton-bowser-mendelson/); I’m no Bowser fan, but it seems clear that he’s the hold-up, and that’s absolutely disqualifying given the stakes.

He needs to go, and I’m confident that Erin Palmer is up to the job.

ANC is basically high school student government. She’s going to be absolutely steam rollered by DC interest groups and will as a result focus on only the most inane virtue signaling stuff.

Why are you so invested in undermining her experience? ANC work is real, on-the-ground work on behalf of constituents. In the best case, it’s what people who care about their communities do to make them better and to make government more effective. That’s what she has done. She has gotten results for her constituents, which includes engaging with “special interests.” You really want to make it seem small potatoes and meaningless, and to belittle her. Why?

lol I know what ANC work is. One step above PTA.

Again, belittling. PTA work is real work, too—often done by women and rarely appreciated for what it accomplishes. Now I think I understand why you’re so invested in this attack.

Are you also the person belittling her work as a lawyer and at AU?

Multiple people are pointing out she’s a lightweight. And it has nothing to do with gender.

ANCs are a useless blight on DC governance. Any candidate who claims ANC experience as a qualification for office gets an automatic demerit from me. PTA president would actually be more persuasive come to think about it.

Ummmm. It has everything to do with gender. Haven't heard this critique of Matt Frumin.

I am a woman and I'm one of the people who is worried she does not have the experience to be Chair. I'm not critiquing Matt Frumin because I don't live in Ward 3 and he's not on my ballot. However, I've also noted that I'd feel so much more comfortable voting for Palmer to be a member of the council than Chair. Why is she running for Chair instead of At-Large? I really don't get it.

I am not a fan of Mendo's but before he became chair, he had almost 30 years of experience in DC politics, including over 10 years as an ANC (including holding positions within the committee like treasurer, on top of normal ANC duties), significant experience within DC's Democratic State Committee, plus three years as an At-Large member. I'm not saying every incoming chair has to have that kind of experience (and in fact it might be good to have someone with more experience outside of government for a variety of reasons) but it is very, very hard to take Palmer seriously when you are comparing her to this.

Chair is a big job. It is not enough to simply be passionate and articulate and share my views. It is reasonable to be unsure that Palmer is up for it, and when the question is raised and then waived away by Palmer or her supporters, it does not instill confidence. If she flounders and struggles and gets criticized, will that be waived away too?

If you are unable to acknowledge that gender, in part, is part of the critique of Palmer, it is hard to believe that you share, e.g., Palmer's/Democratic Party views seriously. One suspects you would have chafed at Elissa Silverstein running for chair, too. We take the candidates for who they are. Palmer went to law school and had kids. Mendelson did not go to graduate school and did not have custody of his kid. Different experiences. She's younger, too. Of course she has less overall experience - but every millennial is going to have less experience than every Boomer, particularly white male Boomers. If the answer is we can only trust old white men, I give you Evans and Graham. Mendelson knew Evans was bad for years - and did nothing - because they are close friends. Time for some clean hands to steer the council.

Ok wow, let's get started:

(1) I didn't say gender plays no role in every criticism of Palmer. I said it plays no role in MY concerns about her as chair. I'm sure there are people for whom her gender makes her seem less qualified. But given that I'm a woman with a REMARKABLY similar background to Palmer, I don't think that's it. I have friends from law school who are women who are my age (early 40s) who I think could do the job. They have all actually run stuff before. I also know a number of organizers in DC, also women, with significantly more leadership and organizing experience than Palmer. These comparisons give me plus when I look at her. It is not because I don't think women can do the job. I am evaluating Palmer as an individual. Also: "One suspects you would have chafed at Elissa Silverstein running for chair, too"? What a neat little straw man you have constructed.

(2) I am a die hard progressive who, if you met me, you'd probably respect and like. I've worked a lot in DC on major progressive initiatives, including paid parent leave, domestic violence initiatives, and education. I want a progressive as Chair. I'm glad Palmer has the views she has. But I've also been doing this work long enough to know that simply holding an opinion does not qualify you to get progressive policies enacted. Do you have any idea how many die hard but ineffectual progressives I've worked with over the years? So many. I've also worked with people who got much better at it with time. Palmer strikes me as someone who could be really effective as chair... in 10 years after she has more ANC experience, maybe spearheaded a major initiative, maybe served as an At-Large member for a time. If saying that makes you question my progressive bona fides, then you know NOTHING about policy making. Also, Mendelson has been a pretty progressive chair, which you would understand if you'd been following DC politics for more than 10 minutes. He's been much less effectual in the last few years, but he's not a centrist or conservative democrat.

(3) I went to law school, I have kids. So do most of the women I know. Some have the credentials for work like this, some don't (I personally don't think I am currently qualified to be Council Chair based on my experience). Law school is 3 years, and it's not like Palmer took years off from public advocacy work to have kids. These are not reasons to feel sorry for her or take a chance on someone unqualified. There are LOTS of qualified women with graduate degrees and kids out there. But other than four years on an ANC, she has almost no relevant experience. I think her ethics work is laudable, but it's an advisory role. I might feel differently if I didn't know so many women with the kind of qualifications I'd like to see in this role. I am frustrated that my option here is Palmer, who I like personally but am really unsure about her readiness for the job. That's not a sexist critique, it's a rational and evidence-based one.

(4) Yes, she's young! That's one of the problems. It might be different if she'd been doing different things with her career thus far, but she hasn't. Mendelson was in his late 40s when he joined the Council (as member, not chair)-- he was pretty young too. But he'd been working ANC for nearly two decades. Palmers been doing it for 4 years. See how this works? It's not agist to expect people to work their way up, it's prudent. And it's easy to have clean hands when you haven't been working in politics very long. Mendelson is imperfect, but his hands are actually pretty clean for someone who has been working at that level as long as he has. It's much harder to do that. Which again, is why Palmer's inexperience is very relevant. What is going to happen when she is getting pressed upon by special interests and has to deal with a lot of politicians who DON'T have clean hands? We have no idea, since she has little to no track record.

(5) The option isn't Palmer or Evans/Graham. It's Palmer (young, inexperienced, personable but untested) or Mendo (flawed, maybe getting too tired and old for the job, but with exceptional knowledge of the system and a track record of supporting progressive policies). I'm not saying it's a cut and dried decision. But the idea that Palmer is the clear winner is ridiculous.

Honestly, if these are the arguments her supporters are trotting out to deal with VALID criticisms of her lack of experience, I'm less interested in her than I was before. But okay, go ahead and call me a sexist meanie if it makes you feel better when she loses as a result.

1) ALL women are capable of internalizing/spreading gender inequity. Consider your rhetoric.
2) Self-defining yourself as "progressive" is outre and just because you think that you are a progressive and have worked on progressive initiatives doesn't make you an expert on DC politics, either. I have lived and voted in DC for 20+ years, care very much about local politics and Mendo pretty middle of the road - has he bought a house with developer kickbacks like certain mayors/councilpeople? Probably not, granted.
3) I, too, went to law school and have kids - and that's why the constant "eat her alive" feels like a gendered narrative.
4) You just said Mendo was too old (which is ageist) and then said your critique of Palmer is not ageist. Food for thought.
5) The system is not working well. Maybe a new hand can work in partnership with all of the others on the Council. It is interesting that at the Ward level people are consistently (now) voting for youth. More conservative youth (Pinto; probably Goulet) in wealthier areas, but also Janesse George in Ward 4, Brianne Nadeau, etc.
6) No one said she is the clear winner. But neither is Mendo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look at the endorsements. She is another hard-left progressive of the Charles Allen, Brianne Nadeau, Robert White ilk. No meaningful positions on addressing the rising crime rates in the city except for "violence prevention programs". No private sector business experience at all (I do not count being a junior associate at a large law firm as being exposed to the reality of meeting a payroll). I just read through her naive and one-sided view on housing in the District. Apparently it has not occurred to her that part of the reason that landlords have difficulty maintaining buildings is that DC's absurdly one-sided tenant-friendly eviction and rent control laws make it difficult to (a) make enough money on older buildings in order to make needed capital and maintenance improvements and (b) evict tenants who trash apartments and create pest, mold and other issues which affect other units. I would like council people who are actually able to think through issues, instead of reacting to everything with knee-jerk bleeding heart liberalism.

Please. You do not need to be in the private sector to be "exposed to the reality of meeting a payroll."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I was all set to vote for Palmer for Chair but I'm working on my ballot this week and doing lots of reading and have started getting cold feet. I'm frustrated with Mendo and agree the Council needs fresh faces and I like the idea of new leadership. I think my political align pretty well with Palmer and I like her personally -- she has a great attitude and seems easy to work with and I could see that translating to a good leadership style.

But I'm suddenly getting nervous. Council Chair has a lot of power. It's a big job with a ton of logistics. Palmer has a great resume and I'm a huge fan of her advocacy. But she's never been in a role with this many moving parts, this level of logistics. I am stressed about it. ANC can be a challenging job but it's very small compared to Chair. Her day job has always been as more of a team player.

She also has proposals for changing the way the Council works. I don't disagree with her proposals (re-forming the education subcommittee and hiring on more staff to draft and review legislation) but that kind of change can be hard and she has no track record with it -- no track record with building teams (other than her campaign team, which is smaller than typical because she decided to do public funding) or building a program from the ground up. I have done those things and it is really challenging work.

It's hard to imagine voting for Mendo (though I've done it in the past so it's not THAT hard) but I'm just starting to wonder if Palmer's enthusiasm and style can overcome these deficits in experience. Can some of Palmers supporters make the argument in favor? I want to vote for her but I need to get past this reservation.

(please don't accuse me of being a Mendo plant -- I genuinely want to vote for Palmer and want to hear the best argument in her favor on the issue of experience and leadership ability, I have been angry with Mendo since the Council overturned Prop. 77)

Being an effective advocate, as she has been as ANC, requires strong organization and leadership skills. If she has gotten results for her ANC, and it sounds like she has, it’s because she knows how to organize, engage, and be persuasive. In addition, she will have a staff as Council chair, and if she’s smart she’ll hire some experienced hands.

It’s true that this will be a leap for her, but that’s not an argument to keep someone in office who seems completely uninterested in representing and advocating for the people who elected him—in some cases actively working against their expressed interest (e.g. leading the effort to overturn the results of Initiative 77).

He also refuses to engage on development of the RFK site, which is highly time-sensitive given the likely end of Democratic congressional rule after the midterms (more here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/05/31/commanders-stadium-dc-norton-bowser-mendelson/); I’m no Bowser fan, but it seems clear that he’s the hold-up, and that’s absolutely disqualifying given the stakes.

He needs to go, and I’m confident that Erin Palmer is up to the job.

ANC is basically high school student government. She’s going to be absolutely steam rollered by DC interest groups and will as a result focus on only the most inane virtue signaling stuff.

Why are you so invested in undermining her experience? ANC work is real, on-the-ground work on behalf of constituents. In the best case, it’s what people who care about their communities do to make them better and to make government more effective. That’s what she has done. She has gotten results for her constituents, which includes engaging with “special interests.” You really want to make it seem small potatoes and meaningless, and to belittle her. Why?

lol I know what ANC work is. One step above PTA.

Again, belittling. PTA work is real work, too—often done by women and rarely appreciated for what it accomplishes. Now I think I understand why you’re so invested in this attack.

Are you also the person belittling her work as a lawyer and at AU?

Multiple people are pointing out she’s a lightweight. And it has nothing to do with gender.

ANCs are a useless blight on DC governance. Any candidate who claims ANC experience as a qualification for office gets an automatic demerit from me. PTA president would actually be more persuasive come to think about it.

Ummmm. It has everything to do with gender. Haven't heard this critique of Matt Frumin.

I am a woman and I'm one of the people who is worried she does not have the experience to be Chair. I'm not critiquing Matt Frumin because I don't live in Ward 3 and he's not on my ballot. However, I've also noted that I'd feel so much more comfortable voting for Palmer to be a member of the council than Chair. Why is she running for Chair instead of At-Large? I really don't get it.

I am not a fan of Mendo's but before he became chair, he had almost 30 years of experience in DC politics, including over 10 years as an ANC (including holding positions within the committee like treasurer, on top of normal ANC duties), significant experience within DC's Democratic State Committee, plus three years as an At-Large member. I'm not saying every incoming chair has to have that kind of experience (and in fact it might be good to have someone with more experience outside of government for a variety of reasons) but it is very, very hard to take Palmer seriously when you are comparing her to this.

Chair is a big job. It is not enough to simply be passionate and articulate and share my views. It is reasonable to be unsure that Palmer is up for it, and when the question is raised and then waived away by Palmer or her supporters, it does not instill confidence. If she flounders and struggles and gets criticized, will that be waived away too?

If you are unable to acknowledge that gender, in part, is part of the critique of Palmer, it is hard to believe that you share, e.g., Palmer's/Democratic Party views seriously. One suspects you would have chafed at Elissa Silverstein running for chair, too. We take the candidates for who they are. Palmer went to law school and had kids. Mendelson did not go to graduate school and did not have custody of his kid. Different experiences. She's younger, too. Of course she has less overall experience - but every millennial is going to have less experience than every Boomer, particularly white male Boomers. If the answer is we can only trust old white men, I give you Evans and Graham. Mendelson knew Evans was bad for years - and did nothing - because they are close friends. Time for some clean hands to steer the council.

Ok wow, let's get started:

(1) I didn't say gender plays no role in every criticism of Palmer. I said it plays no role in MY concerns about her as chair. I'm sure there are people for whom her gender makes her seem less qualified. But given that I'm a woman with a REMARKABLY similar background to Palmer, I don't think that's it. I have friends from law school who are women who are my age (early 40s) who I think could do the job. They have all actually run stuff before. I also know a number of organizers in DC, also women, with significantly more leadership and organizing experience than Palmer. These comparisons give me plus when I look at her. It is not because I don't think women can do the job. I am evaluating Palmer as an individual. Also: "One suspects you would have chafed at Elissa Silverstein running for chair, too"? What a neat little straw man you have constructed.

(2) I am a die hard progressive who, if you met me, you'd probably respect and like. I've worked a lot in DC on major progressive initiatives, including paid parent leave, domestic violence initiatives, and education. I want a progressive as Chair. I'm glad Palmer has the views she has. But I've also been doing this work long enough to know that simply holding an opinion does not qualify you to get progressive policies enacted. Do you have any idea how many die hard but ineffectual progressives I've worked with over the years? So many. I've also worked with people who got much better at it with time. Palmer strikes me as someone who could be really effective as chair... in 10 years after she has more ANC experience, maybe spearheaded a major initiative, maybe served as an At-Large member for a time. If saying that makes you question my progressive bona fides, then you know NOTHING about policy making. Also, Mendelson has been a pretty progressive chair, which you would understand if you'd been following DC politics for more than 10 minutes. He's been much less effectual in the last few years, but he's not a centrist or conservative democrat.

(3) I went to law school, I have kids. So do most of the women I know. Some have the credentials for work like this, some don't (I personally don't think I am currently qualified to be Council Chair based on my experience). Law school is 3 years, and it's not like Palmer took years off from public advocacy work to have kids. These are not reasons to feel sorry for her or take a chance on someone unqualified. There are LOTS of qualified women with graduate degrees and kids out there. But other than four years on an ANC, she has almost no relevant experience. I think her ethics work is laudable, but it's an advisory role. I might feel differently if I didn't know so many women with the kind of qualifications I'd like to see in this role. I am frustrated that my option here is Palmer, who I like personally but am really unsure about her readiness for the job. That's not a sexist critique, it's a rational and evidence-based one.

(4) Yes, she's young! That's one of the problems. It might be different if she'd been doing different things with her career thus far, but she hasn't. Mendelson was in his late 40s when he joined the Council (as member, not chair)-- he was pretty young too. But he'd been working ANC for nearly two decades. Palmers been doing it for 4 years. See how this works? It's not agist to expect people to work their way up, it's prudent. And it's easy to have clean hands when you haven't been working in politics very long. Mendelson is imperfect, but his hands are actually pretty clean for someone who has been working at that level as long as he has. It's much harder to do that. Which again, is why Palmer's inexperience is very relevant. What is going to happen when she is getting pressed upon by special interests and has to deal with a lot of politicians who DON'T have clean hands? We have no idea, since she has little to no track record.

(5) The option isn't Palmer or Evans/Graham. It's Palmer (young, inexperienced, personable but untested) or Mendo (flawed, maybe getting too tired and old for the job, but with exceptional knowledge of the system and a track record of supporting progressive policies). I'm not saying it's a cut and dried decision. But the idea that Palmer is the clear winner is ridiculous.

Honestly, if these are the arguments her supporters are trotting out to deal with VALID criticisms of her lack of experience, I'm less interested in her than I was before. But okay, go ahead and call me a sexist meanie if it makes you feel better when she loses as a result.

1) ALL women are capable of internalizing/spreading gender inequity. Consider your rhetoric.
2) Self-defining yourself as "progressive" is outre and just because you think that you are a progressive and have worked on progressive initiatives doesn't make you an expert on DC politics, either. I have lived and voted in DC for 20+ years, care very much about local politics and Mendo pretty middle of the road - has he bought a house with developer kickbacks like certain mayors/councilpeople? Probably not, granted.
3) I, too, went to law school and have kids - and that's why the constant "eat her alive" feels like a gendered narrative.
4) You just said Mendo was too old (which is ageist) and then said your critique of Palmer is not ageist. Food for thought.
5) The system is not working well. Maybe a new hand can work in partnership with all of the others on the Council. It is interesting that at the Ward level people are consistently (now) voting for youth. More conservative youth (Pinto; probably Goulet) in wealthier areas, but also Janesse George in Ward 4, Brianne Nadeau, etc.
6) No one said she is the clear winner. But neither is Mendo.

DP. Oh please. Can it with the unfalsiable accusations of sexism. I don’t like Palmer due to schools. Her political naivete and lack of any sort of managerial experience or even significant community organizing are concerning as well (although most candidates are unqualified in that regard - the point is that her appeal is shallow.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at the endorsements. She is another hard-left progressive of the Charles Allen, Brianne Nadeau, Robert White ilk. No meaningful positions on addressing the rising crime rates in the city except for "violence prevention programs". No private sector business experience at all (I do not count being a junior associate at a large law firm as being exposed to the reality of meeting a payroll). I just read through her naive and one-sided view on housing in the District. Apparently it has not occurred to her that part of the reason that landlords have difficulty maintaining buildings is that DC's absurdly one-sided tenant-friendly eviction and rent control laws make it difficult to (a) make enough money on older buildings in order to make needed capital and maintenance improvements and (b) evict tenants who trash apartments and create pest, mold and other issues which affect other units. I would like council people who are actually able to think through issues, instead of reacting to everything with knee-jerk bleeding heart liberalism.

Please. You do not need to be in the private sector to be "exposed to the reality of meeting a payroll."

She has absolutely zero business experience.