Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to say, ethics lawyers aren’t the brightest in the bunch.

Non-lawyers who think ethics lawyers are human rights lawyers are certainly below that level.

She teaches human rights law at AU and has represented clients on human rights cases, so I think we are splitting hairs.

She doesn’t teach human rights law at AU. She’s a supervising attorney for a law clinic on a part-time basis.

FFS. Students in legal clinics take a class to be part of a clinic. She is teacher of that class. https://www.wcl.american.edu/community/faculty/profile/palmer/bio

She is not a “teacher” in any practical sense. She’s effectively is a supervisor of legal interns.

If you don’t know how law school works or what a legal clinic is, you should really just stand down because you are misrepresenting her experience is important ways that I’m sure she would be careful not to do herself.

Lawyer who has been in a legal clinic. She’s a human rights law professor. Professors are teachers. You sound kinda sexist - not a great look for you, Mendo.

This is hilarious. She’s not a “professor”. AU doesn’t refer to her as a professor. Clinics are practicums for experiential education, so it doesn’t even make any sense. She supports and advises participants, which is consistent with her stated role as a “supervising attorney” which is the actual job title that AU gave her.

It isn’t even accurate to say that she is part of the AU WCL clinical faculty, because AU doesn’t even consider her a faculty member.
https://www.wcl.american.edu/academics/experientialedu/clinical/faculty/

Why you feel the need to overstate her credentials, I have no idea. But it’s not sexist to point that out and it’s actually pretty sad to claim that it is. I think you are doing her campaign a grave disservice.

You are hilarious and have very little understanding of how law schools works. Adjunct faculty...are...faculty...And yes, the constant downplaying of her credentials and/or suggesting because she has three kids she does not the time time/energy is pretty boilerplate sexism. Your participation in these attacks does general womanhood a great disservice. Try harder. Be better.

She is not “adjunct faculty” in any practical sense. This is what you don’t understand. Her job at AU WCL is the equivalent of a science lab TA.

No, having been a student in a legal clinic supervised by adjunct faculty whom I addressed as "Professor X," what I don't understand is why you need to downplay the role of adjunct faculty. Weird.

There are clinical faculty. She’s not one of them and it’s not her job title. Trying to make sure that people like you don’t overstate what is in a fact a very marginal role at a law school. That is all.

Gotta call BS. AU refers to her as a professor on the clinic website. She is not teaching their currently because she took a leave to run for council. Your misogyny is manifest. Hope you don't have daughters.

They do not. It reads: “Erin Louise Palmer is supervising attorney…”.

The fact you keep lying about something that is easily disprovable is odd. What’s the point? Particularly when it’s something so unimportant. She’s effectively a volunteer (the pay might cover parking) for a couple hours a week providing advice to law students in a clinic. Good for her, but that does not make her a “law professor”.

Reading is fundamental: https://www.wcl.american.edu/community/faculty/profile/palmer/teaching; "There are no classes currently associated with this professor." Again, you don't know anything about how adjunct faculty at law schools function. Now, call your mother and apologize for your oink oink behavior. So gross.

The link doesn't work for me (DP) can you say how to navigate there?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to say, ethics lawyers aren’t the brightest in the bunch.

Non-lawyers who think ethics lawyers are human rights lawyers are certainly below that level.

She teaches human rights law at AU and has represented clients on human rights cases, so I think we are splitting hairs.

She doesn’t teach human rights law at AU. She’s a supervising attorney for a law clinic on a part-time basis.

FFS. Students in legal clinics take a class to be part of a clinic. She is teacher of that class. https://www.wcl.american.edu/community/faculty/profile/palmer/bio

She is not a “teacher” in any practical sense. She’s effectively is a supervisor of legal interns.

If you don’t know how law school works or what a legal clinic is, you should really just stand down because you are misrepresenting her experience is important ways that I’m sure she would be careful not to do herself.

Lawyer who has been in a legal clinic. She’s a human rights law professor. Professors are teachers. You sound kinda sexist - not a great look for you, Mendo.

This is hilarious. She’s not a “professor”. AU doesn’t refer to her as a professor. Clinics are practicums for experiential education, so it doesn’t even make any sense. She supports and advises participants, which is consistent with her stated role as a “supervising attorney” which is the actual job title that AU gave her.

It isn’t even accurate to say that she is part of the AU WCL clinical faculty, because AU doesn’t even consider her a faculty member.
https://www.wcl.american.edu/academics/experientialedu/clinical/faculty/

Why you feel the need to overstate her credentials, I have no idea. But it’s not sexist to point that out and it’s actually pretty sad to claim that it is. I think you are doing her campaign a grave disservice.

You are hilarious and have very little understanding of how law schools works. Adjunct faculty...are...faculty...And yes, the constant downplaying of her credentials and/or suggesting because she has three kids she does not the time time/energy is pretty boilerplate sexism. Your participation in these attacks does general womanhood a great disservice. Try harder. Be better.

She is not “adjunct faculty” in any practical sense. This is what you don’t understand. Her job at AU WCL is the equivalent of a science lab TA.

No, having been a student in a legal clinic supervised by adjunct faculty whom I addressed as "Professor X," what I don't understand is why you need to downplay the role of adjunct faculty. Weird.

There are clinical faculty. She’s not one of them and it’s not her job title. Trying to make sure that people like you don’t overstate what is in a fact a very marginal role at a law school. That is all.

Gotta call BS. AU refers to her as a professor on the clinic website. She is not teaching their currently because she took a leave to run for council. Your misogyny is manifest. Hope you don't have daughters.

They do not. It reads: “Erin Louise Palmer is supervising attorney…”.

The fact you keep lying about something that is easily disprovable is odd. What’s the point? Particularly when it’s something so unimportant. She’s effectively a volunteer (the pay might cover parking) for a couple hours a week providing advice to law students in a clinic. Good for her, but that does not make her a “law professor”.

Reading is fundamental: https://www.wcl.american.edu/community/faculty/profile/palmer/teaching; "There are no classes currently associated with this professor." Again, you don't know anything about how adjunct faculty at law schools function. Now, call your mother and apologize for your oink oink behavior. So gross.

The link doesn't work for me (DP) can you say how to navigate there?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to say, ethics lawyers aren’t the brightest in the bunch.

Non-lawyers who think ethics lawyers are human rights lawyers are certainly below that level.

She teaches human rights law at AU and has represented clients on human rights cases, so I think we are splitting hairs.

She doesn’t teach human rights law at AU. She’s a supervising attorney for a law clinic on a part-time basis.

FFS. Students in legal clinics take a class to be part of a clinic. She is teacher of that class. https://www.wcl.american.edu/community/faculty/profile/palmer/bio

She is not a “teacher” in any practical sense. She’s effectively is a supervisor of legal interns.

If you don’t know how law school works or what a legal clinic is, you should really just stand down because you are misrepresenting her experience is important ways that I’m sure she would be careful not to do herself.

Lawyer who has been in a legal clinic. She’s a human rights law professor. Professors are teachers. You sound kinda sexist - not a great look for you, Mendo.

This is hilarious. She’s not a “professor”. AU doesn’t refer to her as a professor. Clinics are practicums for experiential education, so it doesn’t even make any sense. She supports and advises participants, which is consistent with her stated role as a “supervising attorney” which is the actual job title that AU gave her.

It isn’t even accurate to say that she is part of the AU WCL clinical faculty, because AU doesn’t even consider her a faculty member.
https://www.wcl.american.edu/academics/experientialedu/clinical/faculty/

Why you feel the need to overstate her credentials, I have no idea. But it’s not sexist to point that out and it’s actually pretty sad to claim that it is. I think you are doing her campaign a grave disservice.

You are hilarious and have very little understanding of how law schools works. Adjunct faculty...are...faculty...And yes, the constant downplaying of her credentials and/or suggesting because she has three kids she does not the time time/energy is pretty boilerplate sexism. Your participation in these attacks does general womanhood a great disservice. Try harder. Be better.

She is not “adjunct faculty” in any practical sense. This is what you don’t understand. Her job at AU WCL is the equivalent of a science lab TA.

No, having been a student in a legal clinic supervised by adjunct faculty whom I addressed as "Professor X," what I don't understand is why you need to downplay the role of adjunct faculty. Weird.

There are clinical faculty. She’s not one of them and it’s not her job title. Trying to make sure that people like you don’t overstate what is in a fact a very marginal role at a law school. That is all.

Gotta call BS. AU refers to her as a professor on the clinic website. She is not teaching their currently because she took a leave to run for council. Your misogyny is manifest. Hope you don't have daughters.

They do not. It reads: “Erin Louise Palmer is supervising attorney…”.

The fact you keep lying about something that is easily disprovable is odd. What’s the point? Particularly when it’s something so unimportant. She’s effectively a volunteer (the pay might cover parking) for a couple hours a week providing advice to law students in a clinic. Good for her, but that does not make her a “law professor”.

Reading is fundamental: https://www.wcl.american.edu/community/faculty/profile/palmer/teaching; "There are no classes currently associated with this professor." Again, you don't know anything about how adjunct faculty at law schools function. Now, call your mother and apologize for your oink oink behavior. So gross.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to say, ethics lawyers aren’t the brightest in the bunch.

Non-lawyers who think ethics lawyers are human rights lawyers are certainly below that level.

She teaches human rights law at AU and has represented clients on human rights cases, so I think we are splitting hairs.

She doesn’t teach human rights law at AU. She’s a supervising attorney for a law clinic on a part-time basis.

FFS. Students in legal clinics take a class to be part of a clinic. She is teacher of that class. https://www.wcl.american.edu/community/faculty/profile/palmer/bio

She is not a “teacher” in any practical sense. She’s effectively is a supervisor of legal interns.

If you don’t know how law school works or what a legal clinic is, you should really just stand down because you are misrepresenting her experience is important ways that I’m sure she would be careful not to do herself.

Lawyer who has been in a legal clinic. She’s a human rights law professor. Professors are teachers. You sound kinda sexist - not a great look for you, Mendo.

This is hilarious. She’s not a “professor”. AU doesn’t refer to her as a professor. Clinics are practicums for experiential education, so it doesn’t even make any sense. She supports and advises participants, which is consistent with her stated role as a “supervising attorney” which is the actual job title that AU gave her.

It isn’t even accurate to say that she is part of the AU WCL clinical faculty, because AU doesn’t even consider her a faculty member.
https://www.wcl.american.edu/academics/experientialedu/clinical/faculty/

Why you feel the need to overstate her credentials, I have no idea. But it’s not sexist to point that out and it’s actually pretty sad to claim that it is. I think you are doing her campaign a grave disservice.

You are hilarious and have very little understanding of how law schools works. Adjunct faculty...are...faculty...And yes, the constant downplaying of her credentials and/or suggesting because she has three kids she does not the time time/energy is pretty boilerplate sexism. Your participation in these attacks does general womanhood a great disservice. Try harder. Be better.

She is not “adjunct faculty” in any practical sense. This is what you don’t understand. Her job at AU WCL is the equivalent of a science lab TA.

No, having been a student in a legal clinic supervised by adjunct faculty whom I addressed as "Professor X," what I don't understand is why you need to downplay the role of adjunct faculty. Weird.

There are clinical faculty. She’s not one of them and it’s not her job title. Trying to make sure that people like you don’t overstate what is in a fact a very marginal role at a law school. That is all.

Gotta call BS. AU refers to her as a professor on the clinic website. She is not teaching their currently because she took a leave to run for council. Your misogyny is manifest. Hope you don't have daughters.

They do not. It reads: “Erin Louise Palmer is supervising attorney…”.

The fact you keep lying about something that is easily disprovable is odd. What’s the point? Particularly when it’s something so unimportant. She’s effectively a volunteer (the pay might cover parking) for a couple hours a week providing advice to law students in a clinic. Good for her, but that does not make her a “law professor”.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to say, ethics lawyers aren’t the brightest in the bunch.

Non-lawyers who think ethics lawyers are human rights lawyers are certainly below that level.

She teaches human rights law at AU and has represented clients on human rights cases, so I think we are splitting hairs.

She doesn’t teach human rights law at AU. She’s a supervising attorney for a law clinic on a part-time basis.

FFS. Students in legal clinics take a class to be part of a clinic. She is teacher of that class. https://www.wcl.american.edu/community/faculty/profile/palmer/bio

She is not a “teacher” in any practical sense. She’s effectively is a supervisor of legal interns.

If you don’t know how law school works or what a legal clinic is, you should really just stand down because you are misrepresenting her experience is important ways that I’m sure she would be careful not to do herself.

Lawyer who has been in a legal clinic. She’s a human rights law professor. Professors are teachers. You sound kinda sexist - not a great look for you, Mendo.

This is hilarious. She’s not a “professor”. AU doesn’t refer to her as a professor. Clinics are practicums for experiential education, so it doesn’t even make any sense. She supports and advises participants, which is consistent with her stated role as a “supervising attorney” which is the actual job title that AU gave her.

It isn’t even accurate to say that she is part of the AU WCL clinical faculty, because AU doesn’t even consider her a faculty member.
https://www.wcl.american.edu/academics/experientialedu/clinical/faculty/

Why you feel the need to overstate her credentials, I have no idea. But it’s not sexist to point that out and it’s actually pretty sad to claim that it is. I think you are doing her campaign a grave disservice.

You are hilarious and have very little understanding of how law schools works. Adjunct faculty...are...faculty...And yes, the constant downplaying of her credentials and/or suggesting because she has three kids she does not the time time/energy is pretty boilerplate sexism. Your participation in these attacks does general womanhood a great disservice. Try harder. Be better.

She is not “adjunct faculty” in any practical sense. This is what you don’t understand. Her job at AU WCL is the equivalent of a science lab TA.

No, having been a student in a legal clinic supervised by adjunct faculty whom I addressed as "Professor X," what I don't understand is why you need to downplay the role of adjunct faculty. Weird.

There are clinical faculty. She’s not one of them and it’s not her job title. Trying to make sure that people like you don’t overstate what is in a fact a very marginal role at a law school. That is all.

Gotta call BS. AU refers to her as a professor on the clinic website. She is not teaching their currently because she took a leave to run for council. Your misogyny is manifest. Hope you don't have daughters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to say, ethics lawyers aren’t the brightest in the bunch.

Non-lawyers who think ethics lawyers are human rights lawyers are certainly below that level.

She teaches human rights law at AU and has represented clients on human rights cases, so I think we are splitting hairs.

She doesn’t teach human rights law at AU. She’s a supervising attorney for a law clinic on a part-time basis.

FFS. Students in legal clinics take a class to be part of a clinic. She is teacher of that class. https://www.wcl.american.edu/community/faculty/profile/palmer/bio

She is not a “teacher” in any practical sense. She’s effectively is a supervisor of legal interns.

If you don’t know how law school works or what a legal clinic is, you should really just stand down because you are misrepresenting her experience is important ways that I’m sure she would be careful not to do herself.

Lawyer who has been in a legal clinic. She’s a human rights law professor. Professors are teachers. You sound kinda sexist - not a great look for you, Mendo.

This is hilarious. She’s not a “professor”. AU doesn’t refer to her as a professor. Clinics are practicums for experiential education, so it doesn’t even make any sense. She supports and advises participants, which is consistent with her stated role as a “supervising attorney” which is the actual job title that AU gave her.

It isn’t even accurate to say that she is part of the AU WCL clinical faculty, because AU doesn’t even consider her a faculty member.
https://www.wcl.american.edu/academics/experientialedu/clinical/faculty/

Why you feel the need to overstate her credentials, I have no idea. But it’s not sexist to point that out and it’s actually pretty sad to claim that it is. I think you are doing her campaign a grave disservice.

You are hilarious and have very little understanding of how law schools works. Adjunct faculty...are...faculty...And yes, the constant downplaying of her credentials and/or suggesting because she has three kids she does not the time time/energy is pretty boilerplate sexism. Your participation in these attacks does general womanhood a great disservice. Try harder. Be better.

She is not “adjunct faculty” in any practical sense. This is what you don’t understand. Her job at AU WCL is the equivalent of a science lab TA.

No, having been a student in a legal clinic supervised by adjunct faculty whom I addressed as "Professor X," what I don't understand is why you need to downplay the role of adjunct faculty. Weird.

There are clinical faculty. She’s not one of them and it’s not her job title. Trying to make sure that people like you don’t overstate what is in a fact a very marginal role at a law school. That is all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to say, ethics lawyers aren’t the brightest in the bunch.

Non-lawyers who think ethics lawyers are human rights lawyers are certainly below that level.

She teaches human rights law at AU and has represented clients on human rights cases, so I think we are splitting hairs.

She doesn’t teach human rights law at AU. She’s a supervising attorney for a law clinic on a part-time basis.

FFS. Students in legal clinics take a class to be part of a clinic. She is teacher of that class. https://www.wcl.american.edu/community/faculty/profile/palmer/bio

She is not a “teacher” in any practical sense. She’s effectively is a supervisor of legal interns.

If you don’t know how law school works or what a legal clinic is, you should really just stand down because you are misrepresenting her experience is important ways that I’m sure she would be careful not to do herself.

DP but this is the whole thing that concerns me about Palmer, who I like. It feels like every aspect of her resume is getting overstated in order to make her seem more qualified than she is. As someone who has done a lot of hiring, this is always a red flag -- if someone has the goods (even if their prior titles are not impressive, but they've really done the work) they don't have to overstate part-time or volunteer positions as being bigger or more important than they are. Someone who has experience can simple talk about their experience. People who lack experience tend to list every random thing they've ever done, and try to make it seem like they had more responsibility than they obviously did. Palmer is giving off this vibe (as are her supporters on this thread).
Lawyer who has been in a legal clinic. She’s a human rights law professor. Professors are teachers. You sound kinda sexist - not a great look for you, Mendo.

This is hilarious. She’s not a “professor”. AU doesn’t refer to her as a professor. Clinics are practicums for experiential education, so it doesn’t even make any sense. She supports and advises participants, which is consistent with her stated role as a “supervising attorney” which is the actual job title that AU gave her.

It isn’t even accurate to say that she is part of the AU WCL clinical faculty, because AU doesn’t even consider her a faculty member.
https://www.wcl.american.edu/academics/experientialedu/clinical/faculty/

Why you feel the need to overstate her credentials, I have no idea. But it’s not sexist to point that out and it’s actually pretty sad to claim that it is. I think you are doing her campaign a grave disservice.

You are hilarious and have very little understanding of how law schools works. Adjunct faculty...are...faculty...And yes, the constant downplaying of her credentials and/or suggesting because she has three kids she does not the time time/energy is pretty boilerplate sexism. Your participation in these attacks does general womanhood a great disservice. Try harder. Be better.

She is not “adjunct faculty” in any practical sense. This is what you don’t understand. Her job at AU WCL is the equivalent of a science lab TA.

No, having been a student in a legal clinic supervised by adjunct faculty whom I addressed as "Professor X," what I don't understand is why you need to downplay the role of adjunct faculty. Weird.

There are clinical faculty. She’s not one of them and it’s not her job title. Trying to make sure that people like you don’t overstate what is in a fact a very marginal role at a law school. That is all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to say, ethics lawyers aren’t the brightest in the bunch.

Non-lawyers who think ethics lawyers are human rights lawyers are certainly below that level.

She teaches human rights law at AU and has represented clients on human rights cases, so I think we are splitting hairs.

She doesn’t teach human rights law at AU. She’s a supervising attorney for a law clinic on a part-time basis.

FFS. Students in legal clinics take a class to be part of a clinic. She is teacher of that class. https://www.wcl.american.edu/community/faculty/profile/palmer/bio

She is not a “teacher” in any practical sense. She’s effectively is a supervisor of legal interns.

If you don’t know how law school works or what a legal clinic is, you should really just stand down because you are misrepresenting her experience is important ways that I’m sure she would be careful not to do herself.

Lawyer who has been in a legal clinic. She’s a human rights law professor. Professors are teachers. You sound kinda sexist - not a great look for you, Mendo.

DP. She has a decent career for a bright, mid-tier lawyer. She’s done zero real legal work requiring any sort of grit and difficulty, or dealing with complex political forces. She’s very average as a lawyer.

and also tbh, her background as a government ethics lawyer suggests a real lack of drive and interest. those jobs are done by only the most unimaginative, rules-bound, bureaucratic types. who wants to have any part of their career be reviewing financial disclosure forms … it’s just so incredibly establishment. this matters because it means she has a personality that tends towards a sort of smug hectoring to keep others within arbitrary lines. really not what I want in a council chair.

That is perhaps the most fitting description of Mendelson's style on the council. Have you ever dealt with him??

All my interactions with Erin Palmer have felt genuine on her end, not smug.

If we stipulate that this is true, how does her “genuine” qualities translate into being an effective Council president?

In addition to being genuine, she's also hard working, smart, and knowledgeable about the inner workings of the DC government. Have you paid attention to any of her plans? Anything she's proposed as ANC? She'll do great.

Mendelson has been a dud.

You’re the one who said her “genuine” qualities were important, in contrast to Mendelson who you criticized for a lack of these qualities. I am trying to understand why this is important? What about these qualities will make her an effective Council President?

You don't seem like you're trying to understand. If you're the same person responding with bad faith arguments elsewhere here you're just being combative. Bye.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to say, ethics lawyers aren’t the brightest in the bunch.

Non-lawyers who think ethics lawyers are human rights lawyers are certainly below that level.

She teaches human rights law at AU and has represented clients on human rights cases, so I think we are splitting hairs.

She doesn’t teach human rights law at AU. She’s a supervising attorney for a law clinic on a part-time basis.

FFS. Students in legal clinics take a class to be part of a clinic. She is teacher of that class. https://www.wcl.american.edu/community/faculty/profile/palmer/bio

She is not a “teacher” in any practical sense. She’s effectively is a supervisor of legal interns.

If you don’t know how law school works or what a legal clinic is, you should really just stand down because you are misrepresenting her experience is important ways that I’m sure she would be careful not to do herself.

Lawyer who has been in a legal clinic. She’s a human rights law professor. Professors are teachers. You sound kinda sexist - not a great look for you, Mendo.

This is hilarious. She’s not a “professor”. AU doesn’t refer to her as a professor. Clinics are practicums for experiential education, so it doesn’t even make any sense. She supports and advises participants, which is consistent with her stated role as a “supervising attorney” which is the actual job title that AU gave her.

It isn’t even accurate to say that she is part of the AU WCL clinical faculty, because AU doesn’t even consider her a faculty member.
https://www.wcl.american.edu/academics/experientialedu/clinical/faculty/

Why you feel the need to overstate her credentials, I have no idea. But it’s not sexist to point that out and it’s actually pretty sad to claim that it is. I think you are doing her campaign a grave disservice.

You are hilarious and have very little understanding of how law schools works. Adjunct faculty...are...faculty...And yes, the constant downplaying of her credentials and/or suggesting because she has three kids she does not the time time/energy is pretty boilerplate sexism. Your participation in these attacks does general womanhood a great disservice. Try harder. Be better.

She is not “adjunct faculty” in any practical sense. This is what you don’t understand. Her job at AU WCL is the equivalent of a science lab TA.

No, having been a student in a legal clinic supervised by adjunct faculty whom I addressed as "Professor X," what I don't understand is why you need to downplay the role of adjunct faculty. Weird.