Erin Palmer

[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.

Have you considered the possibility that instead of acting in bad faith, that he’s weighing competing priorities and making necessary compromises to ensure that policies you support get passed?

[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.

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.)

Oh please. What word are you trying to use - perhaps unfalsifiable? That is generally the reactionary response to any assertions of gender bias, racism, etc. 4 years as a very active ANC (she wasn't mine, but is an adjacent SMD) and several years in neighborhood associations is quite a lot of community organizing, actually. Political naivete has never been a bar to service on the DC council. She was an administrator in the federal court system. You don't like her because she wanted to have an optional virtual option for kids and likes vaccines -which is pretty gnarly when you think about it. Yes, the "appeal" of your position is "wide" in large, red swaths of the country - I will give you that.

[Anonymous]

I haven't read all the replies but really wanted to like her and vote for her but just can't.

Listening to her debate Mendelson on Kojo

.. she seemed to support removal of McDuffie from that ballot for AG even though just about everyone else agreed it was a bad faith move and not in the best interest of the city.

.. she repeated over and again her stance is good government but was unable to articulate what that meant or provide really any clear policy plans. Everything "needs to be studied". I think the last think DC council needs is a leader that doesn't have clear plans.

.. In particular her views on policing seem very weakly formed and potentially dangerous.

Finally, she has no experience with the council. It is a BIG job and I'd prefer someone that's been an at large or ward representative.

[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.

Have you considered the possibility that instead of acting in bad faith, that he’s weighing competing priorities and making necessary compromises to ensure that policies you support get passed?

This. People who haven't lived in DC that long or who have only been paying attention for the last few years don't seem to understand that Mendelson has been a gift for progressives in DC the last 10 years. If you are mad about paid family leave getting watered down, you need to understand that it probably would not have happened AT ALL without Mendelson brokering a deal. There are major business interests in DC that opposed it and the compromise made it happen.

Plus, since Mendelson is such an institution, he doesn't mind getting the heat from progressives on stuff like that, which actually helps protect progressive Council members who can blame him to their angry supporters without having to go toe-to-toe with opposing forces. Mendelson effectively protects people like Allen and Silverman who are able to be more strident proponents of liberal policy because Mendelson has the ability to broker deals to get some aspect of what they are proposing though. He's not a centrist, he's a technocrat, and Chair is a role for technocrats.

Honestly, I was fairly sold on Palmer but this conversation has pushed me off her. I really agree with the PP who suggested Christina Henderson as a worthy successor to Mendo. I really like Henderson and I appreciate that she's laying low and building relationships and constituent advocacy for a while but would love to see her in a bigger role. Maybe her sites are set on Mayor but what I've seen of her so far, I'd rather she ran for Chair.

And unlike Palmer, Henderson has years of real policy experience. But go ahead and tell me I'm a sexist for being more enthusiastic about Henderson than Palmer I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read all the replies but really wanted to like her and vote for her but just can't.

Listening to her debate Mendelson on Kojo

.. she seemed to support removal of McDuffie from that ballot for AG even though just about everyone else agreed it was a bad faith move and not in the best interest of the city.

.. she repeated over and again her stance is good government but was unable to articulate what that meant or provide really any clear policy plans. Everything "needs to be studied". I think the last think DC council needs is a leader that doesn't have clear plans.

.. In particular her views on policing seem very weakly formed and potentially dangerous.

Finally, she has no experience with the council. It is a BIG job and I'd prefer someone that's been an at large or ward representative.

Ding ding. One of my biggest concerns about Palmer is that she will dealing with a lot of people for the first time as Chair, and that's really not ideal. I want someone who has more familiarity with the moving parts of not just the Council, but the many powerful lobbies the Council deals with. When people make this "clean hands" argument about her, the flip side is that she has extremely limited experience with many of the forces that tend to make Councilmembers hands so unclean. One thing about Mendo is that when he was elected, he'd been on the Council for a few years and hadn't sold out or screwed anyone over. It made me trust him more and for the most part (I have my quibbles) he's been who he said he was going to be.

I don't think someone HAS to be a member before becoming Chair. I'd even be more than happy to vote for an ANC rep. But I'd be way more interested in someone who'd held additional leadership positions on the ANC, and the most persuasive thing for me would be if they could point to a piece of legislation or specific issue that they managed to push through via advocacy. For instance, she talks about how she works for accountability for sexual assault survivors in her day job, but I don't remember her being involved in any way when we were overhauling sexual assault survivors' rights in the city in 2018-2019. That was a significant piece of legislation and if that's an issue she is passionate about, why does she have no track record with advocacy organizations in the city on the issue? As someone who does work on that issue in the city and has for 15 years, Mendelson is a known quantity and was a friend to the cause during that process. I have more faith in our ability to work with him in the future than in Palmer, who I view as a totally unknown quantity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Voted for Janeese Lewis George because she wasn't Brandon Todd and it's been GREAT! No regrets at all.

I love Janeese! She's responsive, speaks with constituents on the street, and most importantly, fights against traffic violence and out of control drivers in Ward 4.

She wants to reopen Beach Drive to vehicular traffic and also thinks violent criminals should go unpunished. Think before you post.

Reopening upper Beach drive is important for Ward 4.

Interesting, I would say NOT reopening is important for Ward 4.

[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.

This -- even though likely unintentionally -- is so disingenuous. You can only call this person, in more flowery language, a misogynist than provide a compelling argument for voting for Palmer.

[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.

This -- even though likely unintentionally -- is so disingenuous. You can only call this person, in more flowery language, a misogynist than provide a compelling argument for voting for Palmer.

Your misuse of words is odd, Mendo Bro.

[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.

Have you considered the possibility that instead of acting in bad faith, that he’s weighing competing priorities and making necessary compromises to ensure that policies you support get passed?

Yeah, get deep on any issue and you'll see he's not being reasonable, he's being an impediment.

He protected Jack Evans. What more do you need to know?

[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.

This -- even though likely unintentionally -- is so disingenuous. You can only call this person, in more flowery language, a misogynist than provide a compelling argument for voting for Palmer.

Your misuse of words is odd, Mendo Bro.

DP and honest question, how does this behavior benefit your candidate?

[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.

This -- even though likely unintentionally -- is so disingenuous. You can only call this person, in more flowery language, a misogynist than provide a compelling argument for voting for Palmer.

Your misuse of words is odd, Mendo Bro.

Haha. Yes, I was both annoyed and flabbergasted by the response and my own response showed it. Nonetheless, you forget the people you are replying to are very real and the jokes on you when you call someone like me a "mendo bro". And, back at ya, because your use of words is odd, friend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Who would be on her staff?

[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:

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.)

Oh please. What word are you trying to use - perhaps unfalsifiable? That is generally the reactionary response to any assertions of gender bias, racism, etc. 4 years as a very active ANC (she wasn't mine, but is an adjacent SMD) and several years in neighborhood associations is quite a lot of community organizing, actually. Political naivete has never been a bar to service on the DC council. She was an administrator in the federal court system. You don't like her because she wanted to have an optional virtual option for kids and likes vaccines -which is pretty gnarly when you think about it. Yes, the "appeal" of your position is "wide" in large, red swaths of the country - I will give you that.

your accusation of sexism is unfalsifiable because you insist that there are no viable criticism of her other than sexism. there’s no way to raise any legitimate objections, because by definition any objection is sexist.

[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.

This -- even though likely unintentionally -- is so disingenuous. You can only call this person, in more flowery language, a misogynist than provide a compelling argument for voting for Palmer.

Your misuse of words is odd, Mendo Bro.

DP and honest question, how does this behavior benefit your candidate?

This. I've asked a few fair questions about Palmer, someone I have been seriously considering voting for, and whoever her supporters are on this thread have repeatedly called me sexist and told me I'm not progressive enough. I sincerely hope these are just rogue supporters who don't know what they are doing and not actual campaign staff because this is not a great way to persuade people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Who would be on her staff?

Professionals, duh. If you question this, it's because you hate women.

(/s, it should be obvious, just replying as the Palmer stan(s) on this thread probably will when they get the chance)