Just wanted to mention a few thing that strike me frankly as bad news.
1. the Tribune endorsed Dougherty but apparently never even interviewed Farnese or Dicker (!)

"For many readers, this will be a surprising choice," the editorial said.

Still, the paper said, Dougherty has promised to increase the minority presence in his union, and during his campaign has "made an effort to reach out to African Americans, particularly in the Point Breeze section of his district where many residents say they have been neglected for years."

Never mind that sound reminiscent of someone hitting themselves in the forehead over and over again.

Dougherty's opponents are Larry Farnese and Anne Dicker, who both said yesterday that they had not been invited by the Tribune for an endorsement interview. Dougherty's campaign manager said Dougherty had an endorsement interview.

Wow can you say dropped ball?

But on the other hand Dicker did not miss a chance to criticize an ad Farnese ran "paraphrasing" the Inky endorsement.

Harold Jackson, The Inquirer's editorial page editor, said, "We reviewed the ad and saw some things that were not accurate and asked the Farnese campaign to change them."

He questioned in particular one line in the ad that called Farnese a "leader on ethics." The editorial said Farnese was "campaigning on the kind of ethics reform that might have kept Fumo out of trouble."

"We paraphrased," said Ken Snyder, Farnese's media adviser. "We were flattered by the praise they gave Larry regarding his effort in ethics. But they write wordy editorials and I write 30-second commercials. . . . We're perfectly comfortable using that language."

Josh Morrow, a spokesman for Dougherty, called Farnese "a fraud" and said, "Everything he says, you can't believe."

Said Dicker of Farnese: "How can he call himself a reformer and make up quotes?"

2. Dougherty did report nationally the free stay at Dockside on developer and casino investor Peter DePaul's dime but he failed to report it on his state ethics disclosure form, meaning an opponent (perhaps one not distracted by his own entirely avoidable ballot challenge) might have made a case for getting Doc tossed. Oh and the details of his stay keep changing.

3. That whole elaborate lawsuit to overturn campaign finance laws? Maybe it was just to hide an illegally unattributed anonymous anti-Nutter flyer from the primary. And the inflamatory flyer's author Tommie St. Hill just pulled a "dog ate my homework" with the evidence.

Gee, I wonder if one of the other candidates could have made an effort to point out the racially manipulative nature of that flyer to the Tribune editorial board.

Talk about a comedy of errors.

-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.

I get that Doc is not a good guy, really I do. But I have gotten so tired of so-called strategic voting. In the last mayoral election, good candidates were marginalized because they were not Tom Knox. In the presidential election, it's not about people and platforms, it's about who is not as easy to Swift Boat.

So if you look at the candidates' platforms and what they have actually accomplished, you will see that Anne Dicker is the clear choice for progressive voters. What has Farnese done? What, if anything, does he stand for? Nothing that would warrant voting for him, other than the fact that a bunch of South Philadelphians insist on voting for men with Italian-sounding last names.

In other words, would you be considering voting for Farnese if Fumo hadn't backed him?

The thought should make anyone with a conscience shudder.

Vote your heart. Vote Dicker.