Global Source Meltdown

Anonymous source at the FBI? Shame on him!

Yet in the twilight of his career, if Wilkerson is correct, his cooperation with authorities has led to the political downfall of the only black state senator in Massachusetts.

What exactly was he supposed to do? Not help the FBI nab a politician allegedly accepting bribes? That would be real classy of him...

A final thought on this: Time to play a game! Let's play "finish the Globe's sentence."

Among the questions that remain unanswered

is why the Globe would choose to publicly out the man who cooperated in the FBI's investigation, when the FBI felt he should remain anonymous to the public until the trial? Just because Wilkerson's loyalists leaked it? This is a true low point in journalistic standards for the Globe. When the Globe gives more value to their anonymous sources than the FBI's - allowing those who outed Wilburn to do so on background - you know there's something wrong with the Paper of Record.

The World Agrees

Does anyone disagree?

As a matter of criminal law, Wilkerson is innocent until proven guilty. But even if there is some noncriminal explanation for the photographs of Wilkerson accepting cash in an FBI bribery investigation, and for other evidence in the case, there is no harmless explanation. She has lost all credibility as a lawmaker, and she has forfeited her moral right to serve as an elected official.

Tilting at Windmills

With the giants at sight, there's only two questions remaining: who is Wilkerson's Sancho Panza and will Wilkerson eventually face Don Quixote's same sad fate?

Wilkerson Vowes to Push On

When does this cease to become a political career and, instead, become an SNL skit? She doesn't know when to quit. You've lost, Dianne, have some decency and suspend your tilting at windmills.

Just then they came in sight of thirty or forty windmills that rise from that plain. And no sooner did Don Quixote see them that he said to his squire, "Fortune is guiding our affairs better than we ourselves could have wished. Do you see over yonder, friend Sancho, thirty or forty hulking giants? I intend to do battle with them and slay them. With their spoils we shall begin to be rich for this is a righteous war and the removal of so foul a brood from off the face of the earth is a service God will bless."

The Globe has her statement.

My favorite part?

"Not only does this represent the biggest challenge in my personal and political life, but it will test to the limit the notion of innocent until proven guilty," Wilkerson said in the statement. "While there is great curiosity about the particulars of my case I am not at liberty to discuss them for obvious reasons. For those of you who must be thinking 'there has to be more to this story,' of course there is. But it is not a story that I am able or willing to lay out in the press."

I'm innocent, all this evidence is damning, but don't worry, I have answers. I just need to wait until after the election to tell them to you. Riiight...

Update: Wilkerson, and the picture of she stuffing money in her bra, made CNN, according to a friend who was just watching it. She was called a "rogue official." A WCVB is currently linked to CNN.com.

Pro-Homo Mumbo Jumbo

The Mass Family Institute has a very important e-nouncement.

Dianne Wilkerson became the most pro-homosexual state Senator in Massachusetts after the departure of homosexual state Senator Jarrett Barrios (D-Cambridge). She continued his efforts to repeal the 1913 law, culminating in a voice vote in the Senate for repeal earlier this year. She found strong support from the homosexual lobby, especially MassEquality who worked hard for her reelection. The homosexual newspaper Bay Windows was also supportive of Wilkerson over the years, until they endorsed her opponent in this year’s Democratic primary. Sonia Change-Diaz ended up beating Wilkerson in the primary.

Apparently, it's all MassEquality's fault that Wilkerson's allegedly a crook, or something. Puh-leaze.

Should MassEquality have endorsed Wilkerson in the primary? No. But their endorsement doesn't equate to condoning bribery - to take it to that extreme is just asinine.

But let's all play the guilt-by-association game! MFI supports swearing at kids at school and pornography. See?

Adrian Walker's "Journalism," Irony

The next time someone prepackages a story for Adrian Walker, he may want to reconsider exactly why such a story would drop on his lap. As evidenced in the Wilkerson affidavit, it was Wilkerson who gave Walker this story.

Wilkerson told the CW in a recorded conversation on or about July 11, 2007, that she sent a package of material to a Boston Globe columnist about the lack of liquor licenses available to minorities in the city of Boston.

He wrote an entire column on how the city of Boston was holding up economic development through the licensing process. Meanwhile, it was Dianne Wilkerson who pushed the story to help get one particular nightclub a license, eventually freezing dozens of other licenses in the process. Oops.

What was the extent of Wilkerson's obstructionism, the obstructionism Walker sought to shine a light on?

Wilkerson said that she had "the sixty licenses" on hold....

On or about January 16th, 2008, UC1 [the FBI informant] met with Wilkerson at her State House office. The meeting was audio recorded. At the outset of the meeting, UC1 introduced a second FBI undercover agent posing as another out-of-state businessman.... During the course of the meeting, UC1 told Wilkerson that he was considering taking over the development of the Dejavu Club for the CW. He asked Wilkerson if she could hold up the liquor licensing for another four weeks. Wilkerson responded that she could do so because she was 'on the... committee' handling the legislation.

Unfortunately, there's shades of Judy Miller here. Walker fell prey to someone using him to game the media, a phenomenon that's helped lead to a serious decline in the quality of journalism. Where once the media was a source to find the truth, now it's a source to be used by independent parties seeking to control the truth.

People who send prepackaged press releases with all sorts of helpful shady information are almost always going to have their own motives. Columnists and journalists should beware using them - and may just want to spend some of their time researching exactly why people are feeding them a particular story. Often, even if there's ulterior motives, it may still be worth printing the story - but without knowing the why behind the leak, it's irresponsible to use that source.

Furthermore, rarely, if ever, should an article be printed on the basis of a source that refuses to be identified. An article on a particular nightclub's liquor license situation was not important enough to run without revealing the primary source behind the article, or who provided the information that led to that article.

The one highlight in all of this for Adrian Walker? Unlike with Judy Miller, at least Walker didn't help get us into a bloody war. Thanks, Adrian.

Update: Walker penned a column on Wilkerson and his column today. He didn't find Wilkerson's phone call to him about the liquor license odd, but never references the packet Wilkerson sent to him at all; it's as if it never existed. Was the packet anonymous? What did he know and when did he know it?

Finally, where was the research on his column before he penned it? Did Roxbury truly have less than its fair share of liquor licenses? Or did he just take Wilkerson's word for it? Did he give any consideration into Wilkerson's motives behind the column - or is he so naive as to think ulterior motives don't exist? He tries to blow off his big mistake when, instead, he should learn from it.

"Take the Money and Go to Fox Woods"

That's what the bribers told Wilkerson as she took the money and smiled, per WBZ live at 6:04pm.

Apparently, Ryan's Take has gone full circle. The months before the summer were directed toward defeating casinos - while in the summer, posting focused on defeating Wilkerson. Perhaps, all this time, the problems were one in the same?

Casinos are nefarious. I'd hate to think that gambling has been one of the primary causes of Wilkerson's continual and constant money problems - the bribes only being the worst - but such bizarre and shocking behavior is often indicative of gambling problems. Really, at this point, would anyone be surprised?

Such a tragic story, such a waste of talent... it could almost be a modern Shakespearean play.

Update: I've read most of the official, 32-page report. (pdf)

The WBZ report was indeed correct. In section 28, lines 16-19, the person who was cooperating with the FBI told her to "take the thousand dollars and do something good... Knock yourself out... You earned it." She then went on to say she was going to Fox Woods for the weekend.

From reading the report, she didn't just accept a bribery and use her influence to get a liquor license that would cost $250-300k on the open market. She held up legislation on Beacon Hill that would have saved $500,000 for the city of Boston in these tough fiscal times - and she held up legislation for pay raises to the people on the board that approved Boston liquor licenses until they approved the full license. When the license was approved, they got their raise through the Senate just days later.

Mike complained about how Dianne never got anything significant passed on her own and, when it came to 'bringing home the bacon,' usually just got small earmarks attached to the budget. She essentially was great at joining in the chorus, not so much in actually leading. Well, it turns out Mike was wrong: it's very clear that she was as skilled as anyone on Beacon Hill, at least in playing hardball for causes that mattered to her. But those causes were greatly dependent on how many hundreds they gave her to stuff in her bra.

It's disgusting that she so easily betrayed the trust of all the hundreds of people who volunteered for her campaign or donated money - and the tens of thousands who have voted for her in the past. Governor Patrick, Mayor Menino, MassEquality and dozens of other politicians and organizations were all made to look the fool because of Wilkerson's corruption. Shame on her.

What $13,500 Can Buy You

Short answer? A lot of influence.

Long answer? Click that link, but here's a snippet.

The affidavit claims that for her cash payments, Wilkerson worked it: She sent letters to all city councilors demanding a hearing on liquor licenses. She convinced Walker to write a column pushing the joint's application - by painting the holdup as proof the city licensing board had it out for non-insiders.

And, allegedly, she then threatened the city council: Get Deja Vu its full license or she'd hold up the election bill. City Council President Maureen Feeney got mad, the complaint alleges, but agreed to meet with Wilkerson.

I'm not going to be writing a lot about Senator Wilkerson's latest - and probably last - major fuck up, but I must say that I'm proud that I stood up for what was right - at great personal cost, I may add (seriously) - because our public officials must promote the public trust, not destroy it. Sadly, my suspicions were confirmed - in ways that even I couldn't imagine - but thankfully it happened now and not November 5th.

People like Wilkerson are the reason why so many people don't trust government, which makes it all too easy to block important reforms that would improve the lives of Americans, thus giving them real reason to not trust government. Cynicism is a festering disease that feeds on itself, far easier to catch than to heal. Politicians are not special - they're people, like you or I. They work for us, not the other way around; we actually pay their salaries. A disregard for the law or an unwillingness to work on behalf of constituents is unacceptable coming from a public servant. Most politicians get it, only some don't. Thankfully, what we get out of this whole election and Wilkerson experience is Sonia Chang Diaz. As bad as Wilkerson was, Chang Diaz will be good. So a bad story - tragic, even - ends well. The system, though damaged, still works.

For Wilkerson, the Truth Hurts

One of the more perplexing arguments coming from Dianne Wilkerson after she went down in defeat on the night of the primary was that Sonia Chang Diaz spent her way to victory - that supporters like Barbara Lee, the philanthropist, 'bought' the district. Given the previously released campaign finance reports, that seemed absurd: while Sonia certainly raised a great deal of money this election, especially for a challenger of an incumbent, she was still outspent by tens of thousands.

Well, sometimes the things that hurt the most is truth. There's no need for added commentary to the latest Chang-Diaz Press Release - tackling Wilkerson's claims that the Democratic Nominee bought the district.

FACT CHECK

Dianne Wilkerson has repeatedly claimed (on Election night and again at her sticker campaign announcement event last night) that this election was "bought," calling out progressive philanthropist and Chang-Diaz donor Barbara Lee in particular:

Boston Herald (9/16/08): "My fear is that people will think this district is for sale," she said, claiming she was outspent. "There has been so much money spent in this process. It has been unprecedented for us."

Boston Phoenix (9/16/08): She called out Barbara Lee, the progressive philanthropist who helped back Chang-Diaz, as having bought the district, in so many words.

PolitickerMA (9/17/08): At her Election Night party Tuesday night, Wilkerson said that Lee spent an "inordinate amount of money" on the race, creating the perception "that this district is for sale."

Boston Herald (9/24/08): At a rally in Dorchester last night, Wilkerson said she would run as a Democrat in a sticker campaign "to make clear to all that are paying attention that this district is not for sale."

THE FACTS:

- Barbara Lee, known for her support of female candidates, including many of Boston's female candidates of color (St. Fleur, Dorcena Forry, Cabral, Allen, Mota and Sen. Wilkerson herself in prior years), donated $500 to the Chang-Diaz campaign this year, the legal campaign finance limit.

- Per the most recent campaign finance reports, Dianne Wilkerson raised and spent more money than Chang-Diaz this year -- $131,775 compared to $102,888. That figure is in addition to tens of thousands of dollars' worth of independent expenditures on Wilkerson's behalf, including mail pieces from labor organizations and political advocacy groups.

- Dianne Wilkerson received nearly $100,000, 76% of her contributions, from donors outside the district, including $14,000 dollars from lobbyists and PACs.
- In comparison, 49% of Chang-Diaz's donations were from donors inside the district, and 69% of her donations were from donors giving $100 or less. She received no money from PACs and only $100 from a lobbyist.

For Senator Wilkerson to make claims that the election was "bought" by one outside donor is not just false -- it's ludicrous when you put it up against the facts of who has actually funded her primary campaign and Chang-Diaz's primary campaign.

Wilkerson's Gone Too Far

Dianne Wilkerson wants a second write-in campaign, this time against the Democratic Nominee of the Democratic Party, Sonia Chang-Diaz. As an unapologetic party loyalist, I find Dianne's latest actions outrageous as a sitting State Senator and someone who attended the Democratic National Convention, presumably as a delegate.

Note to readers: publicly opposing the Democratic Nominee (through contributions or otherwise) is expressly against Democratic State Committee regulations and would make any such members subject to removal (per Section 3c of the State Party's bylaws). The same goes for most of the local town, city and ward committees - as most share the same or similar provision. Dianne Wilkerson herself is likely in violation of this policy if she is a member of her city or ward committee (she is not a member of the Democratic State Committee).

The larger question: Why did it have to come to this? Wilkerson's completely lost touch with reality. She is not the first person to have been challenged by constituents and found wanting; she won a primary challenge against an incumbent to gain her seat in the first place. Anyone who purports to be a true party loyalist - which should include every elected state official in the Democratic Party - ought to be well aware of the old adage that we come together after the primary. This is party politics 101. What is it to say that she now thinks she is more than the will of her party - the thousands of people who voted in the primary?

I'm a party loyalist because I recognize that we can't accomplish practically anything in government without a wide coalition. The party system is still the best vehicle that exists to create those coalitions. I happen to believe in progressive, populist causes, empowering everyday citizens and keeping the country out of unnecessary wars - hence my registration to the Democratic Party. That a supposed party loyalist and elected representative of my party would want to buck that system and screw the team is a notion both repugnant and revealing.

Dianne Wilkerson needs to get over it. Of course, she's entitled to a recount; that's fine. But a sticker campaign is just whining. It's an attempt to subvert the will of the voters and abandoning the core principals of our electoral system. A true leader would own the loss, clean up their act, continue to engage in the community and run again in two years. Dianne Wilkerson chose to mimic the politics of Joe Lieberman when she could have pulled a Michael Dukakis, who lost an election for governor as an incumbent and won again four years later. We need more dignity in politics, not more arrogance.

Her attempts will likely fail - but let the record be clear: not only will her campaign waste precious resources that could be going to important causes, but anyone that continues to support Dianne Wilkerson is going against the will of the Democratic Party. We have rules in place to participate within the frameworks of the party; Dianne Wilkerson has chosen to abandon them. That's her right, though she'll have to live with the consequences.

Governor Patrick, Mayor Menino and likely MassEquality won't be on her corner this time - expect them to all endorse Sonia, or at least stay out. Without all that help - and the army of volunteers that come with them - I don't know why or how Wilkerson thinks she has a chance at a sticker campaign in which her opponent, the Democratic nominee, will be on the ballot. This is vastly different than her last sticker campaign - much more like this one.

In the meantime, let the record be clear: anyone in the party apparatus who now continues to support Dianne Wilkerson's campaign is in clear violation of party rules and subject to removal from State, City, Town and Ward committees. Furthermore, any organization that continues to support Dianne's candidacy will have to answer to their membership - the financial contributions and volunteer hours that fuel these organizations. There's an easy decision to make here on solid moral grounds, but I'm always a man of the carrot and the stick. In declaring her decision to run a sticker campaign, Wilkerson's gone too far. How many people will jump off the cliff with her?

Sonia/Wilkerson Debate in Video - Sonia Rocks

Lest anyone think this is just an accountability debate, the real reason to vote for Sonia Chang Diaz is because she gets it. Here she is on Cori reform, an issue that I'm sure is very important to 2nd Suffolk District voters.

But I also can't forget why I first got interested in this race: I can't fathom a time to vote for someone who breaks the law, numerous times, and thinks he or she can get away with it.

An audience member asked what both Wilkerson and Chang-Diaz would do to uphold campaign finance laws.

Wilkerson will "try her best." That's all she could say. Literally - and amazingly pathetic. She's just not listening.

The difference between the two of them here is, well, enlightening.


There is a clear choice for State Senator in this race. There's a candidate who takes the job seriously - and not just for granted. That clear choice, that person who takes this job seriously, is not Senator Wilkerson.

For all the dirty details, go visit Mike's site.

The Problem With Wilkerson

Despite what some would suggest, the problem with Senator Wilkerson isn't that voters just don't know her record; it's that Second Suffolk District voters have had decades to become intimately aware of what the Senator's all about. The problem with Dianne Wilkerson isn't that people aren't reading past the headlines; it's that district voters know all the sordid details that Wilkerson creates for herself campaign finance report after campaign finance report. The problem with Senator Wilkerson isn't the headlines; it's that the headlines write themselves.

The problem with Senator Wilkerson is that, at some point, almost anyone will realize bad behavior can't be rewarded. The problem is that at some point voters will say "enough is enough" and vote for the better alternative. The problem for Wilkerson, it seems, is the time is at hand.
______________________________
Help Keep Ryan's Take Going

Going Home, Let the Blogging Commence

I'm EXHAUSTED. Red-eye flight. Weee! My Denver convention is over as the Democratic National Convention begins (I missed the BMG crew by an hour). Some highlights:

• I sat literally 4 or 5 feet away from Senator Wilkerson at a brunch. She didn't recognize me.
• Denver's no Boston, but worth the visit. Georgeous museums, civic park (state house, city hall, public library, etc) but ugly skyline (if only they bulldozed the skyscrapers - they worked hard to ruin their backdrop) and absolutely horrid public transportation.
  
• Coors Field, though, is wicked cool. I saw Aaron Cook and Edinson Volquez, two bonafide aces on the field. 4-3 game, Rockies won.
  
• People are nicer here. I swear it.
  
• I can't freaking breath! Seriously, between my allergies and the thin air, I'm getting wicked sick. Most people have faired better, but everyone's noticed the difference.
  
• Deval Patrick gave an absolutely wonderful speech at said brunch. I hope to find it on Youtube. I'd wish him good luck for his prime time gig at the DNC, but he doesn't need it.
• Again, with the brunch. Jamie Eldridge waved me over as I came into the room, insisting I sit with him. I was going to wish him luck in his contest, but again, I don't think he needs it. He's a winner and our state needs more like him.
  
• The entire state party has shipped out to Denver; they stayed at the same hotel. John, Gloribell, Alex, Stacey... you name it. As much organizing as we all thought this thing took, it clearly takes a lot more. No one's stopped working since I've been here.
  
• I have one or two posts I've been saving for when I'm back home, I just need to type them up. Regular blogging will probably start tomorrow or Tuesday (depending how hard I crash after this weekend trip). Until then!
  

More on Sonia's Poll

Mike put on his citizen journalist's hat and did the research on the poll showing that Sonia Chang-Diaz has a 17% lead on incumbent Sen. Dianne Wilkerson. Everyone who has any doubts about the poll's veracity ought to go read it.

The Chang-Díaz folk claim a combined lead on voters who lean/are probable/definitely voters for the candidates. Those are Chang-Diaz 47.2%, Wilkerson 29.7% and undecided 23%.That combines the undecided with a margin of error of 4.8%. Cohen is quick to say he wants Chang-Diaz to win but knows that four weeks before a party primary is a long time in politics. Many things could happen. "I can't say Sonia's definitely going to win, but I like the results," he adds.

So, as always, a poll is a snapshot in time, but this particular picture is not only very positive, but four weeks from when the people will mark down their choices at the booth. This is like taking a picture of a bride and groom before they say I do. They're going to say I do, it's only a formality.

Other things we learn from Mike's post:

• Even in traditional Wilkerson strongholds, Sonia's holding her own. Barring anything unforeseen happening, she won't lose big anywhere.
• The incumbent protection racket - I mean party organizations willing to ignore their constituency - don't represent the will of the people. In fact, they ignore the will of the people and their constituent base at their own peril, as well as at the cost of their integrity.
• This poll builds off previous polls. Last election, when Sonia came in a surprisingly close second, results only showed she could make it a race - never that she'd actually win. She ended up running out of time last election, but she's used the last two years well. It stands to reason that this newest poll is an extension of the last. Now that Sonia's built up her name and credibility within the district, the edge and biggest advantage that Wilkerson once had is gone.

Update: MaPoliticker has much more, including this:

In an interview with PolitickerMA.com Tuesday, Chang-Diaz's pollster, Dan Cohen at Connection Strategies, said that not only was the firm careful about who it interviewed for the survey, but it used a turnout model that would, in theory, favor Wilkerson (D-Boston).

"We used a turnout model where we expect the largest percentage of turnout coming from those neighborhoods were Wilkerson did best," Cohen said.

And more:

David Paleologos, a pollster at Suffolk University, didn't question the poll's results. Paleologos said the most important factor in these polls is determining the likelihood that the respondents are going to vote.

"You need to establish voter intensity," he said. "And you can define likely voters in two ways."

First, Paleologos said, the pollster can look at the voter history and determine if the voter cast a ballot in recent similar elections. And second, the pollster can ask the respondent the likelihood that he or she will vote.

Cohen said he used both standards. His company called voters that had voted in the last recent low turnout Democratic primaries. Then the questioner asked the respondent at the beginning of the interview how likely they were to vote in September.

Sonia's Beating Sen. Wilkerson in the Polls!

AKA Wilkerson's Going Down

The boys at BMG beat me to it, but Sonia Chang-Diaz has opened up a whopping double-digit lead over incumbent Sen Dianne Wilkerson. Of course, no one should be surprised. Here's part of the campaign press release:

JAMAICA PLAIN – Sonia Chang-Díaz's Campaign for State Senate released the results of an internal tracking poll today showing her ahead of Senator Dianne Wilkerson by a wide margin --17.5% -- among likely Democratic Primary voters.

Despite the fact that Wilkerson has received numerous endorsements from legislative leaders and political organizations, the poll shows that the voters of the Second Suffolk District are overwhelmingly looking for a change. Wilkerson, who recently admitted to once again breaking numerous campaign finance laws, had only 25.1% of likely primary voters say she deserves to be reelected, with 46.9% saying it is time to elect someone new.

Those results are translating into what will hopefully be a head-to-head victory lap for Team Chang-Diaz. The campaign still has to do the running and finish the race, but with any luck Wilkerson won't even be in sight at the finishing line. Here's the head-to-head numbers:

In a head-to-head contest, Chang-Díaz led 47.2% to 29.7% with 23.0% undecided.

There's a lot of undecideds, but even if just 3% of them swing Chang-Diaz's way, that means a victory for Team Sonia. In other words, something drastic is going to have to change for Wilkerson to put up what will now have to be deemed a major upset. Given her track record, I have my doubts.

The longtime incumbent is now known primarily for her lapses of judgment, including long-term abuse of the public trust (and law). While she has done a lot for the district and particularly the GLBT community, she is no longer fit for office. Let’s recap why:

Just this August, she reached a settlement with the Attorney General’s office over her latest violations of campaign finance law. She paid over $10,000 in fines and had to forgo over $30,000 in reimbursement for improper uses of campaign funds.

Two years ago, she didn’t bother to collect the trivial 300 nomination signatures, had to run a sticker campaign and was almost defeated by then newbie Sonia Chang-Diaz. We should expect more from such a long-term incumbent.

Also two years ago, she stopped paying her condo fees for many months, eventually owing over $13,000. Her unit faced foreclosure.

In 1997, she pleaded guilty to not filing or paying taxes for three years, from 1991 through 1994. Besides paying up, she was placed under house arrest for 30 days per a federal judge. Furthermore, she admitted not reporting $27,000 in political donations and could not account for $18,000 in reimbursements directly to her. For twice breaking curfew while under house arrest, she ended up at a halfway house for 30 days.

People are obviously starting to listen (even the media's catching on). Of course, the South End News clearly gets the support Sonia has in the district. They went out canvassing with her!

On the rainy Friday South End News spent canvassing the neighborhood with Chang-Díaz, nearly every person who came to the door not only knew the candidate but also said they’d likely be voting for her. Only one man was unwilling to pledge his support, saying that he needed more information before making his decision.

Mostly, though, the candidate heard encouraging words. One man, leaving his apartment to venture out into the rain, spotted Chang-Díaz on the sidewalk, smiled and offered, "You have our votes, don’t worry."

"I think this time around you’ll get my vote because we’re sick of Dianne Wilkerson," said a woman who came to the door of a garden level Concord Square apartment.

Michael Bono, a South End resident and a recently retired City Hall employee, said that Chang-Díaz would definitely have his vote and offered her an umbrella. "I think it’s time for a change, you always need a change," he said, adding that people he met through his work spoke well of Chang-Díaz. "I love Dianne [Wilkerson] and I know her, I’ve worked with Dianne. But I still think it’s time for change."

Sonia's had years to campaign in her district and clearly made the best of it. She's no longer saddled down by the fact that it's a sticker campaign - and in a sticker campaign, there's nothing better than to have institutional support. That support won't be as much help now. For starters, how many of them knew about Wilkerson's latest foray into crimes and misdemeanors before it happened? That's got to be a serious breach of trust for those organizations.

Secondly, I'd question if, with these kind of poll results, much of Wilkerson's institutional support would even want to dig their feet in on this race. Why should they? There's, of course, a lot of other competitive races for them to work on: the big Watertown race and Carl Sciortino being the big primaries that will make a difference in the progressive community. These are smart organizations filled with smart people: they're going to spend their resources wisely. Right now, that's just not in Wilkerson's campaign. There are other progressives to protect and advocate for who have never needed to plead guilty to serious crimes, never mind twice and once recently.

Lastly, here's a fun poll that sums up how the district actually feels about this race.

My Bay Windows Column: Wilkerson Must Go

Mike and I penned a Bay Windows column appearing in today's paper, following Tuesday's podcast, asking that Senator Wilkerson do the right thing and step down.

We were told, over and over again, that she could clean up her ways. Even just before this latest deal with the Attorney General, most of us believed it. We gave her second and third chances, only to have our trust betrayed each time, most recently by this latest scandal, one that went on for a stunning five years. Enough is enough. If the senator would like to restore our trust, she should do the right thing and step down. She’ll still have our thanks for her courageous votes, but it’s time for new leadership.

Furthermore,

Of course, the odds that Senator Wilkerson will willingly step down are slim. Obviously, our community can’t depend on her to make the right call. If she can’t manage step down on her own accord, leaders in our community and others whom we work with must stop covering for the senator’s bad behavior: it’s a detriment to the entire GLBT and progressive movements, making it appear as though we could care less about the law, so long as we get our votes.

The progressive community must stand for high ethics in this case, lest we be labelled hypocrites. We demand honest and fair government fueled by people-power. It's hard to see where repeated law-breaking public servants fits into the progressive landscape of candidate biography. Certainly, Wilkerson isn't the reformed type - her latest plea deal, for crimes that took place over five years, was only her latest in a long litany of epic misjudgments, crimes and misdemeanors. We must demand more - and, luckily, there's an alternative progressive candidate who offers that in Sonia Change-Diaz.

Wilkerson Bailed on Today's LeftAhead Podcast

We were expecting Senator Wilkerson on today's LeftAhead Podcast, but she bailed on us with a don't-call-us, we'll-call-you promise of a rescheduling. Mike is a lot less cynical than I am, and is willing to give the Senator the benefit of the doubt that she was just too busy only a few days after promising to join our show. Either way, I (read: not everyone on the show) find it inexcusable.

We also chatted about the newest attack of the Mooninites: the MBTA showing that they're only the latest state agency to completely miss the boat in the age of the internet and tech savvy newer generations. Instead of swimming with the current, they tried to stop it - and were severely beaten in the process, turning this into a national story about how the T is clamping down on the freedom of speech. Suffice it to say, this is bad press and a bad mistake on the T's part.

It's a mistake that could get worse, as word gets out that the students were essentially offering the MBTA free and private consulting on how to fix their problems. Hopefully, Massachusetts state agencies will start to think about how to react to perceived problems with today's young adults and various subcultures in the Age of the Internet, because there's clearly systemic problems and the attack of the Mooninites are plaguing Massachusetts seemingly everywhere.

Wilkerson: It's Time to Go

Mike is right, it's well past time for Senator Dianne Wilkerson to either retire or be unseated. Her latest ethical lapse of judgement is perhaps her worst, and she's paying a mighty fine because of it: $10k.

State Senator Dianne Wilkerson has agreed to pay a $10,000 fine as part of a settlement with the attorney general's office in which the Boston lawmaker admitted violating campaign finance laws for five years....

The agreement stems from a Suffolk Superior Court civil lawsuit filed in 2005 alleging scores of campaign law violations, which included failure to report $26,935 in political donations and failure to explain $18,277 paid to her by her political committee. The lawsuit accused Wilkerson of using campaign funds for "personal benefits," accepting prohibited contributions, making improper reimbursements to herself and others, and failing to disclose certain contributions and expenditures in campaign filings.

As much as I love the fact that she's been a leader on glbt rights, I'm tired of the GLBT community continuing to prop her up against a very solid, glbt-friendly challenger in Sonia Chang-Diaz. Her leadership does not excuse her very obvious and self-admitted wrong doing. Enough is enough. We can do better than Senator Wilkerson. It's time for Senator Wilkerson to go.

Show me the Money!

Beacon Hill's seeing shades of green as it weighs whether or not to repeal 1913's laws that prevent out-of-state couples from marrying in Massachusetts if glbt. A prediction: 1913's going down in flames, as it should. Why? Here's something that's tough to turn down:

Consider these numbers: An estimated 32,200 same-sex couples from elsewhere would travel to the state to get married over the next three years. That would pump $111 million into the economy and yield another $5 million in marriage license fees and sales and occupancy taxes.

There's obviously a lot to gain by embracing equality, no matter how anyone slices it.

"It's rare when doing the right thing and economic benefits go so closely hand-in-hand," said Marc Solomon, executive director of MassEquality, a coalition advocating same-sex marriage rights.

Indeed, Marc. It's certainly nice to know that the easy decisions can sometimes be the right decisions. Thankfully, this is one of those cases - which is exactly why the repeal should pass by wide margins.

And equality's on the march!

The Globe's Good Journalism: Corrections

Corrections!

I noticed yesterday that Sen. Wilkerson had a very odd quote, only to find out today that the Globe misquoted her. I half expected it.

Here's what they said first.

Wilkerson, however, said: "I don't consider it courage at all. . . . It doesn't matter how many jobs [are created], if you do not have a car you will not be working at a casino."

Here's what she really said:

"It doesn't matter how many jobs [are created], if you do not have a CORI [Criminal Offender Record Information] you will not be working at a casino."

That's a little better.

Oh, and this whole thing boosts my statement in the comments just yesterday, after I made a update on the story of my own:

The good journalism practice came into play when I CORRECTED the story. We all make mistakes; none of us can know everything all of the time.

There is nothing wrong in the media with getting something wrong, either because there weren't enough facts available or because a simple mistake was made. We all make mistakes and none of us are perfect. Kudos to the Globe for fixing the story; all too often, misquotes stay misquoted forever.