So it's Mitch McConnell's fault?

tl;dr

Darcy needs a good editor or speech writer to work with her to trim anything she's going to send to the public/press. Her introduction is a full third of the piece, and then when she finally addresses your points she spends so much time on the first critique that it takes up another third of the piece. She breezes through the second, third, fourth and fifth critiques you laid out, and then sets up a straw man sixth critique that is simply another pitch for why she's the woman for the job.

If she had trimmed her intro and response to the first critique people who aren't policy wonks could get into it. Also, I think the straw man at the end weakens her point. It reads as a victim's cry to me. In each point before that, she spoke strongly, laying out why she was more than a match for any perceived flaw, but in the final point she brings out the idea that she's bucking the system, that the man didn't want her to do things her way, but she did it anyway and she changed things.

I think it's foolish to assert that a writer for the stranger doesn't like it when someone disrupts the status quo. Rather than laying this straw man at your feet, I think a stronger position would have been to skip the bit about it being your "real objection," and instead leave it where it is. In her previous experience, people told her not to do what she did, and she did it anyway, and it worked. At least, she's saying it did.

If she doesn't blame you, she presents it as her own strength, and manages to avoid the perception of a victim's complex.

As for the content, I think she makes several good points. Based purely on content, I'd vote for her, but I'm a policy wonk who enjoys working on campaigns.

Sweet Jesus. If she can't make her points in less than 1000 words, she's not going to get elected water district commissioner. No wonder she's lost twice.

Fuck...reading her bullshit is nearly enough to make me vote for the Repulican she'll run against....ALMOST.

Darcy, reading your rambling letter proves you are nothing more than "politics as usual".

She managed to lose a swing district of a deeply blue region during an Obama landslide. The rest to be blunt reads like a press release in search of an editor. Why not carry on as a highly effective activist? Why endanger the former seat of Rep. Inslee and risk handing it over to the other party? There's a line between admirable tenacity and becoming a Democratic version of Rossi.

Geez people, lighten up. I thought it was a great letter, and as far as I know it wasn't intended for publication, so of course it might be not so tightly edited.

From the vitriolic tone of these comments, I think there is something else driving the anti-Burner sentiments. I'd love to know precisely what that is.

For what it's worth, I live in the 1st CD and this letter has me strongly considering voting for her in the primary. I thought it effectively countered the objections to her candidacy. She'll have to shorten her points for a broader audience, but this letter is addressed to Eli and by extension the readers of The Stranger, not the electorate as a whole.

Would anyone care to summarize this for me?

Regardless, this again shows why she is not fit for this position. She could have asked to be interviewed, to have a conversation.

Instead, she wrote a novella that only allows her to speak. Very one-sided.

Again, the First deserves better.

@2 that is called an EXAMPLE. mitch mcconnell's dickish comment is an EXAMPLE of what is wrong with American politics. republicans and their agenda.

@9: Burner was aware that this might be published on Slog, approved of the idea, and in fact edited the piece herself as it morphed from a friendly letter to me into something intended for general consumption.

Well written letter. I don't understand the objections.

Want to know what it is, precisely? It's the thing where she's lost twice, yet insists that there is no better way to serve her party and her country than to run again and risk doing that thing... again. And yeah, being long-winded enough to sound like Ayn Rand with the ideology battery put in the other way actually is part of it. It's all about me me me, listen to me, understand me, care about me. But it's not, it's about getting self-centeredness and zero-sum partisanship out of politics, getting real progressive change accomplished.

Wall. Of. Text.

Looks like she did an excellent job refuting all of Eli's points, since nobody has actually engaged with the substance of what she wrote. You can tell she won hands down when her critics here have to try and attack how she said it instead of what she said.

Sigh.

Regarding the second point, which is presumably the college degree problem, journalists are not going to do Burner's job for her. As for Obama, they say he wasn't born in the U.S., his answer is, "Was too!"; Burner's response to the transcript smear is, "Well, actually, I wasn't lying, because here's how the system works at Harvard. . . ."

Looks like she's going to leave no progressive boilerplate un-trotted-out.

Junipero @17,

I critiqued some of the content. The bit about trying to say that Eli's "real" reason for not wanting her to run again. It was a weak method of making her point about being a rebel with a cause. Setting up the straw man the way she did makes her look like she considers herself a victim.

I think she could say what she wanted to better and make her argument stronger.

Holy crap. I copied and pasted this into Word, and got a word count of 2,195.

@ 17, what substance would that be? The laundry list of tired talking points? The meager accomplishments? Maybe something else buried in all that text?

Her first sentence reeks of condescension.

18: Thank you. The "degree thing" is going to come up again, and Burner better figure out her answer. From Eli's Prospect piece:

The Heffter story arose when Burner, retooling her talking points for a moment when economic fears were trumping all else, said on several occasions that she'd been encouraged to study economics as an undergraduate, and "I loved economics so much I got a degree in it, from Harvard." This statement was on video that was easily acquired, and it was not, technically, true. Burner does have a degree from Harvard. But the degree is in computer science. She also has a "special field" in economics, meaning she took five Harvard economics courses.

So, what is the answer? It's simple things like this (and this letter) that make her such a poor candidate.

I wrote the introduction to my thesis this morning and it was about 800 words. A thesis.

@8: Unseating an incumbent is a lot harder than winning an open seat, and Reichert has the whole Green River Killer myth going for him as well (and possibly brain damage). Those losses don't really predict whether or not she would lose this time.

@22: That first sentence is distilled condescension. Condensed condescension?

I'm just kind of tired of her. Eh, better than a Republican, but can't we get a new self-absorbed candidate?

Way, way TL. Definitely DR.

As a rough around the edges, passionate friend of Darcy's, I take exception to the criticisms of short attention span ideologues that complain because she was thorough in making her case. If you can't do better than that, you don't have much ammo.

So far as the degree is concerned, it can be answered in just a few words. She has a degree from Harvard in computer science with a special field of economics. Nothing more needs to be said.

I thought the letter was a great rebuttal of Eli's complaint. I suspect the major issue of the critics in the comments, having no substantive arguments, is really nothing more than a hatred of progressive political objectives.

Ms. Burner’s response leaves me wanting a stronger candidate. I say this as one who voted for her. At a minimum, she must have the leadership skills to persuade her community that her vision is good for them. She has demonstrated no ability to do this.

As proof of leadership, she can only muster the Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq, her candidacy and being manager? She fails to explain how these show experience in helping her community. She didn't persuade enough people to stop the war or vote for her.

She is playing the D.C. game. Trotting out the above just in time for her next campaign as proof of leadership. Voters are uninterested in the things she has done to fill up her resume. Where are the tangible results?

To be a leader, she must understand the current needs of her community. How will she help her neighbor and community? How will she fighting corporate greed? How will she support local business, schools, etc.? How will she persuade those who disagree with her?

Ms. Burner appears narcissistic. Look at me! I'm a good coalition maker! I worked at Microsoft! Really important people read my report! I addressed Congress once! What she cannot do, is show proof of tangible accomplishments. We have enough managers in Congress, we need a leader.

Jesus, why doesn't she just say she has a computer science degree? Isn't her district Ground Zero for that shit?

I take exception to the criticisms of short attention span ideologues that complain because she was thorough in making her case. If you can't do better than that, you don't have much ammo.

So, in other words, you know nothing about politics.

tl;dr

At some point is Darcy going to deign to acknowledge the her primary opponents? Why is she a better candidate than any of them? I really don't think she is...

ok she was on a study committee for Afghanistan, there have been oddles of those all reaching similar conclusions... and what was her role on that committee? her background doesn't exactly scream international intelligence expert...

So again why is she the best candidate in this crowded primary field??? oh she has money and name recognition from losing twice... That's all I am seeing here.

And what about her asinine fundraising letter over the weekend, titled "Mom's Birthday" - possibly to confuse recipients whose mothers, grandmothers, sisters, etcetera might have an imminent birthday - and allegedly written by her eight-year-old son (but presumably not really written by him, because to actually have him write to strangers in that fashion would be a complete dick move, plus it was completely grammatical).

Totally the move to convince us that this lightweight narcissist two-time loser has a clue how to run a campaign.

tl;dr must mean "too lazy; didn't read." Sorry Short Attention Span Theater season ticket holders...some things deserve to be given the time and focus they deserve...and one of those is a comprehensive summation of why someone wants to run for government.

I thought the letter was very interesting and actually won her a vote if she decides to run. I was ready to roll my eyes at her when I heard she was running again but now I'm glad she is.

Sarge @27, you are indeed showing your "roughness". Her response to a blog post was over 2,000 words, after (as Eli pointed out in an earlier comment) she was allowed to edit it, knowing full well it was going out to the general public? That's just terrible messaging.

Also, jumping straight to an accusation of "hatred of progressive politics" turned off my brain and I'm certain more than a few others. This is The Stranger's blog, for christ's sake. Trying to pull some victimhood card that you're too progressive? Really? No, what I hate is losing. Losing races that could be won. I've worked for, managed, and consulted on dozens of legislative races for progressive dems, and I'm so burnt out on candidates who are convinced that if people will just THINK about it, man, the truth will set you FREE and we'll WIN. It doesn't work that way, and labeling critics as haters who just don't get it after reading your two thousand (thousand!) letter reeks of more tone-deaf campaigning that's just going to result in another loss. I hate losing. Nothing about that letter from Darcy indicates she'll do anything else, or anything new, in her third run for the seat.

Roger Goodman 2012

@ 35, "some things deserve to be given the time and focus they deserve...and one of those is a comprehensive summation of why someone wants to run for government."

That's the problem; this boils down to "things must change and I want you to elect me to do it!" That is a cliche, not a "comprehensive summation of why someone wants to run for government."

Anyone who thinks negatively about Darcy based on this letter is a darn fool. What, you don't think she cares enough? You don't think she has the connections to be effective? You don't like the fact that she didn't hire someone to proofread?

Give me a break. Darcy over the last 5 years has earned her place at the top ranks of candidates gunning for this seat. If you support someone else, fine! Post on THEIR letters to the editor about how you view their campaigns. All you are doing by posting negatives here is boosting the fury of the progressives who know better, and helping her get the boots on the ground she'll need to win.

I hate playing whackamole, but I have a feeling that's what we're doing. Darcy, I loved your letter. Keep up the fight.

@Danny: Roger is a good candidate. So is Marco. But can they raise the money to compete? I suspect when the dust settles, we are going to be left with one of the Microsoft women, because they can come up with the dough. Ruderman, Burner, and DelBene can all rake in enough money to be viable. Not sure about the other candidates. DelBene isn't in, of course, but don't be surprised if she tosses in her hat after redistricting is final.

@Juris: Darcy lost, barely, to an incumbent in a district that has never elected a Democrat. If things work out as expected, she'll be in a bluer district running for an open seat. That makes things a lot different. She came close in 06, closer in 08, there is no reason to think she can't win in 2012. She is the most dynamic and well known of all the candidates. She has proven she can raise plenty of money. Darcy is a very good candidate, whether you want to admit it or not.

And by he way, Darcy didn't run the first two times at the expense of any other candidate. No experienced candidates entered the race. Why that results in hostility towards Darcy is not understandable to me. We should thank her for having run, and putting up a good fight.

I heard all these complaints last time around. Had Democrats done less complaining, and more campaigning, she would have won.

Great letter, Darcy. Ignore alla those short-attention-span hipsters. You articulate your points clearly and with detail and don't wring your hands in despair at those filibustering dickwad Republicans (which is what I've been dooing of late). Thanks for your refreshing enthusiasm.

Darcy, please go away.

@40, FEC filing reports will tell...won't they? But I can't imagine that the same netroots who so enthusiastically support Ms. Burner won't also turn on their moneybombs for another progressive running in the WA-1. Unless of course, the great unwashed bloggers of the world act exactly like who their political opponents think they are and take their money and stay home when they don't get exactly what they want.

It's funny... I never understood why Goldy creates so much vitriol in his wake. Now I Know...

Eli critisized Darcy for being an Uppity Woman??? I'll have to go back and read that.