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.
The Ward 4 council member has publicly come out in support of reopening Beach Drive.
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.
Why didn’t Mendelson vote for the high earner income tax increase? Was it because he knew it would pass so then he felt he could vote no to appease the powers that be (guessing Tony Williams et al)?
Someone asked who would be on her staff. Since Chair is such a powerful position I have no doubt she’d be able to attract seasoned staff who know the ropes.
Folks were debating the role of sexism. I actually think more powerful than sexism in this race might be ageism against Mendo. Doesn’t seem like people have a problem electing women to council or the executive office. I do wonder if Palmer’s popularity among my social group is due to her being a woman about my age, meaning my peer group finds her very relatable. Nothing against her, I may even vote for her. I’m still undecided.
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.
I live in her district and agree with you that this conversation has changed my intention to vote for her. I like our council member here in Ward 4, voted for her, and continue to support her even though some of her stances are in direct contradiction with my financial and personal interests - I do it for the greater good, if you will. But I don't think Erin Palmer will be a similarly good choice. It has nothing to do with sexism, her background, etc. I will also be sharing these thoughts with other voters.
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.
Why didn’t Mendelson vote for the high earner income tax increase? Was it because he knew it would pass so then he felt he could vote no to appease the powers that be (guessing Tony Williams et al)?
I don’t personally know, and I was annoyed with his vote. But not as annoyed as I was with my own council member. I don’t love every stance Mendelssohn takes, but I also evaluate chair differently than a ward rep or at-large member. He’s had some votes I dislike, but I generally like how he’s run the council. I’m getting a new ward rep this year (McDuffie is my outgoing) and we get a new at-large member. I’m voting for Zachary Parker and Lisa Gore, and hopeful we’re getting some new progressive voices on the council. But for me that’s all the more reason to maybe stick with Mendo’s leadership, because if he loses that will be an enormous amount of upheaval at a time when the city needs consistence. Plus I think Bowser’s going to win re-election (ugh) and I think Palmer will get steamrolled by Bowser’s machine, no matter her best intentions.
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.
Why didn’t Mendelson vote for the high earner income tax increase? Was it because he knew it would pass so then he felt he could vote no to appease the powers that be (guessing Tony Williams et al)?
I don’t personally know, and I was annoyed with his vote. But not as annoyed as I was with my own council member. I don’t love every stance Mendelssohn takes, but I also evaluate chair differently than a ward rep or at-large member. He’s had some votes I dislike, but I generally like how he’s run the council. I’m getting a new ward rep this year (McDuffie is my outgoing) and we get a new at-large member. I’m voting for Zachary Parker and Lisa Gore, and hopeful we’re getting some new progressive voices on the council. But for me that’s all the more reason to maybe stick with Mendo’s leadership, because if he loses that will be an enormous amount of upheaval at a time when the city needs consistence. Plus I think Bowser’s going to win re-election (ugh) and I think Palmer will get steamrolled by Bowser’s machine, no matter her best intentions.
Yup, all women are cavers. Doesn't matter who runs, gotta have a phallus in certain jobs, AG, head of council, etc. Also, her clothes and hair are low-class.
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.
Why didn’t Mendelson vote for the high earner income tax increase? Was it because he knew it would pass so then he felt he could vote no to appease the powers that be (guessing Tony Williams et al)?
I don’t personally know, and I was annoyed with his vote. But not as annoyed as I was with my own council member. I don’t love every stance Mendelssohn takes, but I also evaluate chair differently than a ward rep or at-large member. He’s had some votes I dislike, but I generally like how he’s run the council. I’m getting a new ward rep this year (McDuffie is my outgoing) and we get a new at-large member. I’m voting for Zachary Parker and Lisa Gore, and hopeful we’re getting some new progressive voices on the council. But for me that’s all the more reason to maybe stick with Mendo’s leadership, because if he loses that will be an enormous amount of upheaval at a time when the city needs consistence. Plus I think Bowser’s going to win re-election (ugh) and I think Palmer will get steamrolled by Bowser’s machine, no matter her best intentions.
Yup, all women are cavers. Doesn't matter who runs, gotta have a phallus in certain jobs, AG, head of council, etc. Also, her clothes and hair are low-class.
You are really, really not doing your candidate any favors here. I’m actually working hard to remind myself that your posts here don’t actually reflect Palmer’s campaign. I’m a woman, and screaming sexism at valid criticism actually hurts women who experience discrimination and harassment.
No one here has said Palmer is a “caver”, only that she is inexperienced (fact). And it’s weird to argue that I was being sexist when I worried that Palmer would get overpowered by Bowser, a woman who happens to have a ton of experience and is very savvy about Council politics (to our detriment, frankly).
Why do you think Palmer would get run over by Bowser (if she's still Mayor) more than Mendelson? If he has some kind of method to standing up to her I can't see it. Maybe once or twice on minor issues, but that comes off as performative to cover for when he does nothing on bigger deal issues.
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.
Why didn’t Mendelson vote for the high earner income tax increase? Was it because he knew it would pass so then he felt he could vote no to appease the powers that be (guessing Tony Williams et al)?
I don’t personally know, and I was annoyed with his vote. But not as annoyed as I was with my own council member. I don’t love every stance Mendelssohn takes, but I also evaluate chair differently than a ward rep or at-large member. He’s had some votes I dislike, but I generally like how he’s run the council. I’m getting a new ward rep this year (McDuffie is my outgoing) and we get a new at-large member. I’m voting for Zachary Parker and Lisa Gore, and hopeful we’re getting some new progressive voices on the council. But for me that’s all the more reason to maybe stick with Mendo’s leadership, because if he loses that will be an enormous amount of upheaval at a time when the city needs consistence. Plus I think Bowser’s going to win re-election (ugh) and I think Palmer will get steamrolled by Bowser’s machine, no matter her best intentions.
Huh? Mendo regularly gets mowed down by Bowser. That’s one of my greatest annoyances with him is that he won’t stand up to her.
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.
Why didn’t Mendelson vote for the high earner income tax increase? Was it because he knew it would pass so then he felt he could vote no to appease the powers that be (guessing Tony Williams et al)?
I don’t personally know, and I was annoyed with his vote. But not as annoyed as I was with my own council member. I don’t love every stance Mendelssohn takes, but I also evaluate chair differently than a ward rep or at-large member. He’s had some votes I dislike, but I generally like how he’s run the council. I’m getting a new ward rep this year (McDuffie is my outgoing) and we get a new at-large member. I’m voting for Zachary Parker and Lisa Gore, and hopeful we’re getting some new progressive voices on the council. But for me that’s all the more reason to maybe stick with Mendo’s leadership, because if he loses that will be an enormous amount of upheaval at a time when the city needs consistence. Plus I think Bowser’s going to win re-election (ugh) and I think Palmer will get steamrolled by Bowser’s machine, no matter her best intentions.
Huh? Mendo regularly gets mowed down by Bowser. That’s one of my greatest annoyances with him is that he won’t stand up to her.
What makes you think that Erin Palmer won’t either if she’s elected? She has no history with key stakeholders, nor comes with an independent source of power. If Mendelson is getting regularly “mowed down”, Palmer is highly likely to just get directly co-opted. She will have no option, because she won’t have any allies, the Council won’t respect her, and probably a good number of them will be actively out to undermine her with the goal to take her job in four years.
There is no scenario where Palmer is delivering better results than Mendelson. She’ll either be a Bowser puppet or it’s chaos and nothing gets done.
Anonymous wrote:Why do you think Palmer would get run over by Bowser (if she's still Mayor) more than Mendelson? If he has some kind of method to standing up to her I can't see it. Maybe once or twice on minor issues, but that comes off as performative to cover for when he does nothing on bigger deal issues.
How's that sports betting thing going?
Palmer literally has no experience dealing with Bowser and politics at this level. That’s the problem. Politics is not as simple as just “standing up” to adversaries/powerful interests.
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.
The Ward 4 council member has publicly come out in support of reopening Beach Drive.
Yes, that was where this conversation started. I just think many in Ward 4 -- including my family -- disagree. I generally like Lewis nonetheless.
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.
The Ward 4 council member has publicly come out in support of reopening Beach Drive.
Yes, that was where this conversation started. I just think many in Ward 4 -- including my family -- disagree. I generally like Lewis nonetheless.
It’s possible that you hold a minority view among residents in the neighborhood and that she’s considering the views of everyone in the Ward, which I would think is a good thing.
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.
The Ward 4 council member has publicly come out in support of reopening Beach Drive.
Yes, that was where this conversation started. I just think many in Ward 4 -- including my family -- disagree. I generally like Lewis nonetheless.
It’s possible that you hold a minority view among residents in the neighborhood and that she’s considering the views of everyone in the Ward, which I would think is a good thing.
similarly the decision should be about the overall city and not just Ward 4.
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.
The Ward 4 council member has publicly come out in support of reopening Beach Drive.
Yes, that was where this conversation started. I just think many in Ward 4 -- including my family -- disagree. I generally like Lewis nonetheless.
It’s possible that you hold a minority view among residents in the neighborhood and that she’s considering the views of everyone in the Ward, which I would think is a good thing.
similarly the decision should be about the overall city and not just Ward 4.
And what is so important to the “overall city” such that deference to the Ward councilmember should be ignored?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
