Don Perata is termed out of his State Senate seat. Whoever wins the Democratic primary will win in November, so this is the real election. But I can't decide - I need advice.
Wilma Chan and Loni Hancock are both excellent candidates to replace Don Perata. They're both progressive, effective legislators. They were both 6-year Assemblymembers (Chan in District 16, Hancock in District 14). Lots of groups and key individuals are issuing dual endorsements. A few have started endorsing only Hancock, but that seems to be only because she appears to be ahead in the polls; that's not a good reason to endorse.
Newspapers are split: SF Chronicle for Hancock, Contra Costa Times for Chan. And even their editorials say there's little difference between the two.
My political junkie friends are split too. Everyone gives slightly different reasons, but it looks like they all plan to vote for the woman they've previously voted for in the Assembly. Berkeley, Richmond and North Oakland folks say Hancock. Oakland and Alameda people say Chan. On philosophy, they appear to be nearly the same.
On issues, Hancock has been a leader on environmental issues (particularly global warming), education (where she focused on reversing the state's dropout rate), on campaign finance reform (the "clean money" bill), and challenging the proliferation of gambling in the state. Chan has led on environmental toxics, stopping hospitals from gouging lower-income patients, and by co-authoring a bill that expanded health care to 800,000 children.
On effectiveness, Chan has already held a leadership position in the California Legislature: she was elected Assembly Majority Leader in 2002, the first Asian American and first woman to hold that position. And everyone describes her as "tenacious." For Hancock, the Chronicle says "California needs legislators who approach the big issues with vision, tough-mindedness and practical solutions. Hancock gets our endorsement..."
So I'm torn. Both would be excellent legislators, but I can only vote for one. What do you think? Please post comments (include which city you live in). Or just vote in the poll to the left.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
Both are progressive candidates (Hancock and Chan) but I've been overwhelmed with several daily lame hit pieces in the mail from and on behalf of the Chan campaign. It's been enough to make me not want to vote for her.
I'm voting for Loni.
Those mailers turn me off also. They're by independent expenditure committees from tribal casino interests. I don't know how much they are on behalf of the Chan campaign, vs. how much they are just the tribes trying to punish Hancock.
The biggest comment I've gotten from others by email is about Chan being more likely to be elected to a leadership position in the Senate.
As an Alamedan, I guess I'm voting for Chan, but I'll say that I have been turned-off by the hit pieces. It should be noted that Chan disavowed the message in the pieces as soon as they hit which gained her a few points.
Chan's record of successfully passing bills is probably the clincher for me. As one who is represented by Pete Stark, I can speak from experience of the importance of not just having the right ideals, but of effectively putting them into play.
As we're chuckling about geographic voting habits, it should also be noted that the Berkeley Democratic club endorsed Chan (as did Alameda's). And Perata is now back to dual endorsing both candidates, sending out mailing for Chan and Phone Calls for Hancock.
Post a Comment