we can do this amicably, but that's not the point. What I'm seeing here is that some people, to my astonishment especially on this blog, have decided to blame Squadron for every failure caused by Bloomberg's experimentation with the schools system. That really opens up several avenues for debate, among them, can we ever afford to do such experiments - and mind you, the idea of getting competent private-sector contractors engaged where bureaucracies fail isn't all that controversial - when, in the event that they don't produce the results we want for our famously dysfunctional school system, the participants are smeared as being directly responsible for every such failure? If you try to change something, the results are not guaranteed.

But what really gets me, and I restate that it's nonsense, is that Squadron is running from the right. It's just not true. Connor, who I've pointed out before isn't a bad guy, is the one who voted to authorize Bloomberg's reforms. That gets lost here. He also takes PAC money, not a small matter.

Meanwhile, over what I think are trivial matters, all of you are missing the point. I'll say this again: would you rather stand with Gatemouth, who goes out of his way to viciously smear every Progressive for whatever spurious reason he convinces himself is relevant, or with the WFP? And don't even get me started on what I really think of the safacity of the organizations you mention.

It's really very simple to me, and that's what I posted: we Progressives are just so used to seeing our candidates run crappy campaigns that we get suspicious of competence, and Squadron is nothing if not competent. He's worked harder for that district than anyone probably ever has.

And that, in turn, makes him suspect, kind of like Obama is being attacked by the right for being too smart and too successful. It's exactly the same thing.