Well, you win some and you lose some. With regard to the Washington Post's delegate endorsements, I agree with two and disagree with two. Here's my reaction, district by district.35th District: Citing Mark Keam's "compelling life story" and "impressive resume," the Post concludes that "Mark Keam deserves to be the nominee" to replace Del. Steve Shannon, who is running for Attorney General. I strongly agree with this one, having endorsed Mark Keam myself. Excellent choice by the Washington Post on this one - Go Mark!
38th District: The Post gives the slightest edge to Bob Hull over Kaye Kory (actually, they all but admit it's a tie between the two), who I support, based on Hull's "experience." The problem with that "experience," which the Post doesn't note, is that Hull is not well liked by his Democratic colleagues in Richmond (actually, from the ones I've spoken with, that's an understatement). In addition, Hull has some questionable votes and views (e.g., that Dominion "Global Warming Starts Here" Virginia Power is a responsible, responsive company!). As to Kaye supposedly not having "a clear vision of what she would do in Richmond," that's utterly ridiculous. On all of those points, see my endorsement writeup and you'll understand what I mean. Go Kaye!
47th District: This one is the Post's biggest mistake, with the Post overlooking the two "most liberal candidates" in the race, Miles Grant (who I support) and Adam Parkhomenko, both because they "lack legislative experience" in Richmond. What the Post overlooks is the fact that the candidate they end up endorsing, Patrick Hope, has no legislative experience in Richmond either and will also "face a steep learning curve." In fact, the only 47th district candidate the Post cites as having Richmond experience is Alan Howze, yet they don't endorse him.
The bottom line here is that the Post doesn't really seem to understand the candidates in this race, probably hasn't had a reporter at any of the debates or forums (I've attended three of those so far and have followed this race very closely), and most likely just went with the candidate supported by elected officials they know and like (e.g., Mary Margaret Whipple). In sum, if you're an undecided voter in the 47th district, the Post endorsement is completely unhelpful in making up your mind. Instead, I urge you to read their interviews online (here is the one I did with Miles), to check out their websites, to read their literature, and to watch the videos I've taken of their performances at debates. Then, you can make an informed choice, not just go with the Post's muddled "reasoning." Oh, and GO MILES!!!
52nd District: The Post endorses Luke Torian over Mike Hodge in this race for Jeff Frederick's vacated seat (Frederick is retiring). Although both Torian and Hodge are impressive people, everything I've heard is that Torian is the strongest candidate to win in November (and also will win the primary easily). The fact is, as the Post writes, either Torian or Hodge "would be a major upgrade from Mr. Frederick." In the end, I don't feel strongly about this primary, largely because I haven't focused on it or spoken with the candidates, but I have no problem with the Post's endorsement of Torian.
P.S. By the way, in 2005, the Post favored Jim Lay, a former Republican (the Post loves "moderate" Republicans!) and possibly Libby Garvey over David Englin (who they dissed as a "novice") in the 45th House of Delegates disrict primary. We can all see how that one worked out. Also, I'd just point out that the major 2008 Democratic presidential candidate with the least experience in Washington, DC was probably Barack Obama. Certainly, Hillary Clinton had more, as did Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, and John Edwards. We can see how that one worked out as well! :)
