Maybe the editorial board's latent racism caught up with them in that they couldn't bear to see an uber intelligent, uber qualified, uber talented African American defeat somebody they perceive as their own kind: a middle aged white hack who lives in the burbs. His election is a perceived threat to their sense of privilege, their sense of King County normalcy. It smells like identity politics.
They probably didn't think Mitchell would be all that competitive when he was in the primary so they decided to be PC sports and endorse him, but now that he's a serious threat, we've got to put good ole Jane back in and put things back to normal.
Flipping their endorsement of Mitchell for making the very same arguments against Hague that they made in their initial endorsement. Makes Herman Cain's abortion position seem almost cogent by comparison.
How about finding another term to use than "douche bag"? There's something inherently sexist about using a term that has to do with feminine hygiene to denigrate a person.
I was interviewed by the Times' endorsement board when I was running for office. I knew I was in trouble when I walked in with my opponent, the long-term incumbent, and they all greeted him by first name, lots of back-slapping, talk of golf scores, etc. They said some nice things about me, but endorsed my aged opponent because of his "experience" (he's been a political hack in this state since 1961).
They probably didn't think Mitchell would be all that competitive when he was in the primary so they decided to be PC sports and endorse him, but now that he's a serious threat, we've got to put good ole Jane back in and put things back to normal.
Enough to compose and read a sentence, given the environment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_…