Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The chair endorsement came out last week and Alicia was the only one singled out for extra scrutiny. I am not upset at their endorsement (I had planned to vote McKay anyway) but to take shots at her and her specifically was unnecessary and uncalled for. There were 2 other White male candidates who barely got a sentence.

Alicia Plerhoples could be a political star some day, but she entered the BOS race with no relevant political experience, based on a hunch that one woman running against three men in a Democratic primary might benefit from a split vote. It sucks if the WaPo asked her sexist questions, but she’s also running a campaign that is fundamentally gender-based. McKay seems like the far stronger and less polarizing candidate.

I don’t get what you’re trying to say. So if someone has issues related to women as part of their platform, people can ask them sexist questions?

You don’t have to be a woman to have issues related to women as part of your campaign. She’s running a campaign that is largely based on the notion that people should vote for her in the primary merely because she is a female POC. Look at all her “seat at the table” materials.

That's not true at all. Having a "seat at the table" refers to a greater effort towards including a broader swath of the Fairfax population in policymaking beyond the white male incumbents who have long representing the county. It's insulting and demeaning to say that a black female candidate is running a campaign based on getting votes for being a female POC, and it's stupid to think that anyone would think that's a winning strategy, particularly in a place like Fairfax.

Actually, a campaign based as much on identity politics as ideas is a very clever strategy to try and pull off a win in a contested Democratic primary, which is what Plerhoples would have to win to get to the general election.

And what’s the BS about all the white male incumbents running the show - the retiring chair is a woman who served on the BOS along with Hudgins, Smyth, Smith, Gross - all women.

So she's running a candidate based on identity politics by nature of being a black female? Um...no. And to answer your other question, there are no female incumbents running again. And despite having 9 female candidates, the WaPo declined to endorse any of them. Makes one wonder what type of "experience" they value.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The chair endorsement came out last week and Alicia was the only one singled out for extra scrutiny. I am not upset at their endorsement (I had planned to vote McKay anyway) but to take shots at her and her specifically was unnecessary and uncalled for. There were 2 other White male candidates who barely got a sentence.

Alicia Plerhoples could be a political star some day, but she entered the BOS race with no relevant political experience, based on a hunch that one woman running against three men in a Democratic primary might benefit from a split vote. It sucks if the WaPo asked her sexist questions, but she’s also running a campaign that is fundamentally gender-based. McKay seems like the far stronger and less polarizing candidate.

I don’t get what you’re trying to say. So if someone has issues related to women as part of their platform, people can ask them sexist questions?

You don’t have to be a woman to have issues related to women as part of your campaign. She’s running a campaign that is largely based on the notion that people should vote for her in the primary merely because she is a female POC. Look at all her “seat at the table” materials.

That's not true at all. Having a "seat at the table" refers to a greater effort towards including a broader swath of the Fairfax population in policymaking beyond the white male incumbents who have long representing the county. It's insulting and demeaning to say that a black female candidate is running a campaign based on getting votes for being a female POC, and it's stupid to think that anyone would think that's a winning strategy, particularly in a place like Fairfax.

Actually, a campaign based as much on identity politics as ideas is a very clever strategy to try and pull off a win in a contested Democratic primary, which is what Plerhoples would have to win to get to the general election.

And what’s the BS about all the white male incumbents running the show - the retiring chair is a woman who served on the BOS along with Hudgins, Smyth, Smith, Gross - all women.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The chair endorsement came out last week and Alicia was the only one singled out for extra scrutiny. I am not upset at their endorsement (I had planned to vote McKay anyway) but to take shots at her and her specifically was unnecessary and uncalled for. There were 2 other White male candidates who barely got a sentence.

Alicia Plerhoples could be a political star some day, but she entered the BOS race with no relevant political experience, based on a hunch that one woman running against three men in a Democratic primary might benefit from a split vote. It sucks if the WaPo asked her sexist questions, but she’s also running a campaign that is fundamentally gender-based. McKay seems like the far stronger and less polarizing candidate.

I don’t get what you’re trying to say. So if someone has issues related to women as part of their platform, people can ask them sexist questions?

You don’t have to be a woman to have issues related to women as part of your campaign. She’s running a campaign that is largely based on the notion that people should vote for her in the primary merely because she is a female POC. Look at all her “seat at the table” materials.

That's not true at all. Having a "seat at the table" refers to a greater effort towards including a broader swath of the Fairfax population in policymaking beyond the white male incumbents who have long representing the county. It's insulting and demeaning to say that a black female candidate is running a campaign based on getting votes for being a female POC, and it's stupid to think that anyone would think that's a winning strategy, particularly in a place like Fairfax.

Anonymous wrote:So they did ask male candidates the same question.

https://www.washingtonian.com/2019/05/28/the-washington-post-endorsed-no-female-candidates-in-fairfax-whats-up-with-that/
Hey, here’s a headline no one wants in 2019: “WaPo Endorses All Men in Fairfax County,” as the progressive blog Blue Virginia wrote Tuesday. And indeed, the Post‘s editorial board did endorse Jeff C. McKay, James R. Walkinshaw, Walter L. Alcorn, Rodney L. Lusk, and Phillip A. Niedzielski-Eichner for contested Democratic primaries in Board of Supervisor races on Monday.

Women who unsuccessfully sought the paper’s endorsements have another gripe. Both Alicia Plerhoples, who is running for chairman of the board, and Larysa Kautz, who is running for Lee District supervisor, say the Post asked them how they’d balance being a parent with the demands of their desired offices. “The very last question that the editorial board asked me during my endorsement interview was — ‘how will you be Chairman with two young children?'” Plerhoples writes on Facebook. “That says it all.”

Kautz also talks about getting passed over on her Facebook page: “To add insult to injury,” she writes, “I was informed during my interview with the WaPo editorial board that the reason that there are no women with young children on the Board of Supervisors is because ‘there are late night meetings, and it’s hard work.’”

Reached by phone, both candidates told Washingtonian they were interviewed by Lee Hockstader, who’s been on the editorial board since 2004. They had different overall impressions from their meetings: Plerhoples, who met Hockstader in person, says her conversation was “very much issue-oriented”; Kautz, who spoke to him over the phone, says she found the whole thing “a little adversarial” and that Hockstader asked her that given an opponent’s experience, why he wouldn’t be the superior candidate. But while Kautz acknowledges she’s opening herself to accusations of sour grapes, both candidates say they were dismayed by the question about work-life balance, which Plerhoples calls “alarming.” Plerhoples also remembers Hockstader introducing the question as saying it was something the board “could have asked” her opponent McKay.

Post editorial page honcho Fred Hiatt tells Washingtonian in an email that the board asked the same question of McKay, which McKay confirms.

But why ask that loaded question at all? After all, as Kautz notes, McKay has been a supervisor since 2007, so presumably he’s got a plan for late-night meetings. “It’s 2019. We should all be beyond asking women about their families in their careers or whether they’re seeking public office,” Plerhoples says.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The chair endorsement came out last week and Alicia was the only one singled out for extra scrutiny. I am not upset at their endorsement (I had planned to vote McKay anyway) but to take shots at her and her specifically was unnecessary and uncalled for. There were 2 other White male candidates who barely got a sentence.

Alicia Plerhoples could be a political star some day, but she entered the BOS race with no relevant political experience, based on a hunch that one woman running against three men in a Democratic primary might benefit from a split vote. It sucks if the WaPo asked her sexist questions, but she’s also running a campaign that is fundamentally gender-based. McKay seems like the far stronger and less polarizing candidate.

I don’t get what you’re trying to say. So if someone has issues related to women as part of their platform, people can ask them sexist questions?

You don’t have to be a woman to have issues related to women as part of your campaign. She’s running a campaign that is largely based on the notion that people should vote for her in the primary merely because she is a female POC. Look at all her “seat at the table” materials.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The chair endorsement came out last week and Alicia was the only one singled out for extra scrutiny. I am not upset at their endorsement (I had planned to vote McKay anyway) but to take shots at her and her specifically was unnecessary and uncalled for. There were 2 other White male candidates who barely got a sentence.

Alicia Plerhoples could be a political star some day, but she entered the BOS race with no relevant political experience, based on a hunch that one woman running against three men in a Democratic primary might benefit from a split vote. It sucks if the WaPo asked her sexist questions, but she’s also running a campaign that is fundamentally gender-based. McKay seems like the far stronger and less polarizing candidate.

I’m not arguing that she doesn’t have the experience, but please read the endorsement. There was maybe a sentence each about the 2 other white male candidates’ weaknesses. They decided to write an addition section at the end pointing out multiple flaws for her. Why not the other candidates? I don’t care what you think of her or her campaign - it was an attack on just one candidate (a female POC) when there are 2 other challengers in the race.

That’s ridiculous. The Post basically ignored the other two candidates altogether. It hardly gave them preferential treatment.

No, they had already stated weaknesses for her. Then went on to add another section at the end with more. Why?

Are you really failing to see how this was unnecessary? I really don’t think it is a stretch to feel that their treatment of her in that endorsement of another candidate can easily be viewed as racist and misogynistic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The chair endorsement came out last week and Alicia was the only one singled out for extra scrutiny. I am not upset at their endorsement (I had planned to vote McKay anyway) but to take shots at her and her specifically was unnecessary and uncalled for. There were 2 other White male candidates who barely got a sentence.

Alicia Plerhoples could be a political star some day, but she entered the BOS race with no relevant political experience, based on a hunch that one woman running against three men in a Democratic primary might benefit from a split vote. It sucks if the WaPo asked her sexist questions, but she’s also running a campaign that is fundamentally gender-based. McKay seems like the far stronger and less polarizing candidate.

I’m not arguing that she doesn’t have the experience, but please read the endorsement. There was maybe a sentence each about the 2 other white male candidates’ weaknesses. They decided to write an addition section at the end pointing out multiple flaws for her. Why not the other candidates? I don’t care what you think of her or her campaign - it was an attack on just one candidate (a female POC) when there are 2 other challengers in the race.

That’s ridiculous. The Post basically ignored the other two candidates altogether. It hardly gave them preferential treatment.